•Hf*1
t
►
♦
a
/*
i
• f
M
s
t
(
0
LIBRARY
OF
BIBLICAL AND THEOLOGICAL
LITERATURE.
EDITED BY
GEORGE R. CROOKS, D.D.,
AND
JOHN F. HURST, I). D.
/y
9
VOL. II -BIBLICAL HEKMLiSTLUTICS.
NEW YORK:
PHILLIPS & HUNT.
CINC1NNA 77:
CRANSTON & STOWE.
\
-
»
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS,
Cl (treatise
ON THE
INTERPRETATION
OF THE
OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS.
z
y/
MILTON Sr TERRY, S.T.D.,
11
f Professor of Old Testament Exegesis in Garrett Biblical Institutb
PHILLIPS & HUNT.
CINCINNATI:
CRANSTON & STOWE .
o
/
*y
\
Copyright, 1883, by
PHILLIPS <& HUNT,
New York.
M\/Cr2^T<^3J
PUBLISHERS’ ANNOUNCEMENT.
' I SHE design of the Editors and Publishers of the
Biblical and Theological Library is to furnish
ministers and laymen with a series of works, which,
in connection with the Commentaries now issuing, will
make a compendious apparatus for study. While the
theology of the volumes will be in harmony with the
doctrinal standards of the Methodist Episcopal Church,
the aim will be to make the entire Library acceptable
to all evangelical Christians.
The following writers co-operate in the authorship
of the series: Dr. Harman, on the “ Introduction to
the Study of the Holy Scriptures;” Dr. Terry, on
“Biblical Hermeneutics;” the Editors, on “Theological
Encyclopaedia and Methodology;” Drs. Bennett and
Whitney, on “Biblical and Christian Archaeology;”
Dr. Latimer, on “Systematic Theology;” Dr. Ridgaway,
on “Evidences of Christianity;” Dr. Little, on “Chris¬
tian Theism and Modern Speculative Thought;” Dr.
iv
PUBLISHERS’ ANNOUNCEMENT.
Crooks, on the “ History of Christian Doctrine ; and
Bishop Hurst, on the “ History of the Christian
Church.”
In the case of every treatise the latest literature will
be consulted, and its results incorporated. The works
comprised in the series will be printed in full octavo
size, and finished in the best style of typography and
binding. A copious index will accompany each vol¬
ume. All the volumes are in process of preparation,
and will be issued as rapidly as is consistent with
thoroughness.
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.
The cordial welcome with which the first edition of this work has
been received is evidence that a treatise of its character and scope
is needed in our theological literature. The plan of the volume was
largely suggested by what appear to be the practical wants of most
theological students. Specialists in exegetical learning will push
their way through all difficulties, and find delight in testing prin¬
ciples ; but the ordinary student, if led at all into long-continued
and successful searching of the Scriptures, must become interested
in the practical work of exposition. The bare enunciation of prin¬
ciples, with brief references to texts in which they are exemplified,
is too dry and taxing to the mind to develop a taste for exegetical
study ; it has a tendency rather to repel. In arranging the plan of
the present treatise, it was accordingly designed from the outset to
make it to a noticeable extent a thesaurus of interpretation. The
statement of principles is introduced gradually, and abundantly
illustrated and verified by means of those difficult parts of Scrip¬
ture in the real meaning of which most readers of the Bible are
supj)Osed to be interested. It cannot be expected that all our
interpretations will command unqualified approval, but our choice
of the more difficult Scriptures for examples of exposition will en¬
hance the value of the work, and save it from the danger, too
common in such treatises, of running into lifeless platitudes. With
ample illustrations of this kind before him, the student comes by a
natural process to grasp hermeneutical principles, and learns by
practice and example rather than by abstract precept.
In order to make the work a complete manual for exegetical
study, we have in Part First, under the head of Introduction to
Biblical Hermeneutics, a comparative estimate of other sacred
books, an outline of the character and structure of the biblical lan-
2
PKEFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.
guages, and two brief chapters on Textual Criticism and Inspiration.
These topics are so connected with biblical interpretation, and some
of them, especially a knowledge of the sacred tongues, lie so essen¬
tially at its basis, that our plan called for some such treatment as
we have given them. The latest movements in the Higher Criti¬
cism approach the study of the Scriptures with the assumption that
our sacred books and also the religion of Israel are nothing more
than the sacred books and religions of other nations (Kuenen, Re¬
ligion of Israel, Eng. trans., vol. i, p. 5). The chapter on the sacred
books of the nations exhibits the fallacy of such assumptions, and
furnishes information which, being stored in many costly volumes,
it is difficult to acquire.
It should be observed, further, that Part Third is not a history of
Hermeneutics , but of Interpretation. It is designed to be supple¬
mentary in its character, and somewhat of the nature of a bibliogra-
£>hy of exegetics. The different methods of interpretation -which
have obtained currency or note are presented under the head of
Principles (Part Second, chap, ii), but we have attempted no
genetic history of Hermeneutics. In fact, no extended genetic de¬
velopment of hermeneutical principles is traceable in history. We
find excellent examples of exegesis in the early Church, and execra¬
ble specimens of mystical and allegorical exposition put forth in
modern times. History shows no succession of schools of interpre¬
tation, except in recent controversies, and these appear in con¬
nection with the varying methods of rationalistic assault, narrated
in our chapters on the exegesis of the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries.
<N CO
CONTENTS
AND
Analytical Outline.
- ♦♦♦ - ■'
PART FIRST.
INTRODUCTION TO BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
CHAPTER I.
Preliminary.
1. Hermeneutics defined, 17.
. General and Special Hermeneutics, 17.
. Old and New Testament Hermeneutics
should not be separated, 18.
4. Hermeneutics distinguished from Intro¬
duction, Criticism, and Exegesis* 19.
5. Hermeneutics both a Science and an
Art, 20.
6. Necessity of Hermeneutics, 20, 21.
7. Rank and importance of Hermeneutics
in Theological Science, 21, 22.
CHAPTER II.
The Bible and other Sacred Books.
1. Knowledge of other Religious Litera¬
tures a valuable Preparation for her¬
meneutical Study, 23.
2. Outline of the Christian Canon, 24.
3. Contents and general character of other
Bibles : —
(1) The Avesta, 25-28.
(2) Assyrian Sacred Records, 28-33.
(3) Tiie Veda, 34-39.
(4) The Buddhist Canon, 40-45.
(5) Chinese Sacred Books, 46-52.
(6) The Egyptian Book of the Dead, 53-57.
(7) The Koran, 57-61.
(8) The Eddas, 62-65.
4. Each of these books must be studied
and judged as a whole, 66.
5. Notable Superiority of the Old and New
Testament Scriptures, 67, 68.
CHAPTER III.
Languages of the Bible.
1. Acquaintance with the Original Lan¬
guages of Scripture the basis of all
sound Interpretation, 69.
2. Origin and Growth of Languages: —
(1) Various Theories of the Origin of Lam
guage, 69-71.
(2) Origin probably supernatural, 71.
(3) Confusion of Tongues at Babel, 71.
(4) Formation of New Languages, 72.
3. Families of Languages : —
(1) Indo-European family, 73.
(2) Scythian, 73.
(3) Semitic, 74, 75.
CHAPTER IV.
The Hebrew Language.
1. Origin of the name Hebrew, 76, 77.
2. Peculiarities of the Hebrew tongue • —
(1) The Letters, 78.
(2) The Vowel-system, 79, 80.
(3) The Three-letter Root, 80.
(4) Conjugations of the Verb, 80-82.
(5) The two Tenses, 82-85.
(6) Gender and Number of Nouns, 86.
(7) Simplicity of Structure, 87.
(8) Omission of Copula, 88.
(9) Order of Subject and Predicate, 88.
(10) Adjectives and Particles, 88, 89.
3. Hebrew Poetry: —
1) Old Testament largely poetical, 90.
2) Parallelism the distinguishing feature, 91.
(3) Form essential to Poetry, 92-94.
(4) Spirit of Hebrew Poetry, 94.
(5) Structure of Hebrew Parallelism, 95-98.
1. Synonymous Parallelism. 96.
2. Antithetic Parallelism, 97.
3. Synthetic Parallelism, 97, 98.
4. Irregular Structure, 99.
(6) Alphabetical Poems and Rhymes, 100.
(7) Vividness of Hebrew expressions, 101.
(8) Elliptical modes of expression, 102.
(9) Old Testament Anthropomorphism, 103.
4. Remarkable uniformity of the Hebrew
Language, 104.
5. Three Periods of Hebrew Literature.
104, 105.
6. Hebrew Language peculiarly adapted te
embody God’s ancient Word, 105, IOC.
7. Its analogy with the Holy Land, 106.
4
CONTENTS AND ANALYTICAL OUTLINE.
CHAPTER V.
The Chaldee Language.
1. Eastern and Western Aramaic, 107.
2. Biblical Aramaic appropriately called
Chaldee, 107.
8. Early traces of Chaldeean speech, 108.
4. The Chaldee passages of Daniel, 109.
5. The Chaldee passages of Ezra, 109, 110.
6. Grammatical peculiarities of the Bibli¬
cal Chaldee, 111.
7. Foreign words, 112.
8. Historical and Apologetical value of the
Chaldee portions of the Bible, 113.
CHAPTER YI.
The Greek Language.
1. Greek an Indo-European tongue, 114.
2. Language and Civilization affected by
climate and natural scenery, 114.
8. Greeks called Hellenes, 115.
4. Tribes and Dialects, 115.
5. Ionic Greek, 116.
6. Attic culture and taste, 116.
7. Decay of Attic elegance, 116, 117.
8. The later Attic or Common Dialect, 117.
9. Alexandrian culture, 118.
10. The Hellenists, 118.
11. Christian thought affecting Greek
speech, 119.
12. Controversy between Purists and He¬
braists, 119.
13. Sources of Information, 120.
14. Peculiarities of Hellenistic Greek : —
(1) Foreign words, 121.
(2) Peculiar orthography, 121.
(3) Flexion of Nouns and Verbs, 121.
(4) Heterogeneous Nouns, 122.
(5) New and peculiar forms of 'words, 122.
6) Old dialects and new words, 122.
7) New significations of words, 123.
(8) Hebraisms:—
1. In words, 125.
2. In forms of expression, 125.
3. In grammatical construction, 125.
15. Varieties of Style among New Testa¬
ment writers, 126.
16. Greek the most appropriate Language
for the Christian Scriptures, 127.
17. The three Sacred Tongues compared,
128.
CHAPTER VII.
Textual Criticism.
1. Higher and Lower Criticism distin¬
guished, 129.
2. Interpretation often involves Textual
Criticism, 129.
8. Causes of Various Readings, 130.
4. Sources and Means of Textual Criti¬
cism, 130, 131.
# 5. Canons of Textual Criticism : —
(1) External Evidence. Four Rules, 132,133.
(2) Internal Evidence. Four Rules, 133-136.
6. These Canons are Principles father than
Rules, 136.
CHAPTER VIII.
The Divine Inspiration of the Bible.
1. Inspiration of Genius, 137.
2. Scripture Inspiration superior, 137.
3. Divine and Human in the Scriptures,
138.
A. Evidences of the Human Element: —
(1) In Narration of historical facts, 138.
(2) In Style and Diction, 139.
(3) In Subject-matter, 139.
(4) In varying Forms of statement, 139.
B. Evidences of tiie Divine Element: —
(1) In declarations of Paul and Peter, 140.
(2) In Old Testament claims, 141.
(3) In Jesus’ words, 141.
4. Three important considerations : —
(1) The whole Bible God’s Book for man,
142.
(2) Inspiration and Revelation are to be dis¬
tinguished, 142.
(3) Inspiration a Particular Divine Provi¬
dence, 143.
5. Divine Inspiration affects Language
and Style, 144.
6. Four kinds of Inspiration, 145.
7. Facts and ideas expressible in a vari¬
ety of forms, 145.
8. Fallacy of trifling with minute details,
145, 146.
9. No conflict between the Divine and
Human, 146.
10. Verbal Variations no valid Argument
against Divine Inspiration, 147.
11. Various Readings no valid Argument
against the verbal Inspiration of the
original Autographs, 148.
12. Inaccurate grammar and obscurity of
style no valid Objection, 149.
13. Error in Stephen’s Address (Acts
vii, 16), 149, 150.
14. Quotation from Tayler Lewis, 150.
CHAPTER IX.
Qualifications of an Interpreter.
1. Intellectual Qualifications : —
(1) A sound, wTell-ba lanced Mind, 151.
(2) Quick and clear Perception, 151.
(3) Acuteness of Intellect (Bengel and De
Wette), 152.
(4) Imagination needed, but must be con¬
trolled, 152.
(5) Sober Judgment, 153.
(6) Correctness and delicacy of Taste, 153.
(7) Right use of Reason, 153.
(8) Aptness to teach, 154.
2. Educational Qualifications : —
Familiar acquaintance with Geography, His¬
tory, Chronology, Antiquities, Politics,
Natural Science, Philosophy, Comparative
Philology, and General Literature should
be acquired, 154, 155.
3. Spiritual Qualifications : —
(1) Partly a gift, partly acquired, 156.
(2) Desire to know’ the Truth, 156.
(3) Tender affection, 157.
(4) Enthusiasm for the Word of God, 157.
(5) Reverence for God, 157.
(6) Communion and Fellowship with the Holy
Spirit, 157, 158.
CONTENTS AND ANALYTICAL OUTLINE,
5
PAET SECOMB.
PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
- 4 -
CHAPTER I.
Preliminary.
1. Hermeneutical Principles defined, 161.
2. Importance of Sound Principles, 161.
3. True Method of determining Sound Prin¬
ciples, 162.
4. Ennobling Tendency of hermeneutical
Study, 162.
CHAPTER II.
Different Methods of Interpretation.
1 . Allegorical Interpretation (Philo, Clem¬
ent), 163.
2. Mystical Interpretation (Origen, Mau-
rus, Swedenborg), 164, 165.
3. Pietistic Interpretation (Quakers), 1 65,
166.
4. The Accommodation-Theory (Sender),
166.
5. Mor$l Interpretation (Kant), 167.
6. Naturalistic Interpretation (Paulus),
168.
7. The Mythical Theory (Strauss), 168—
170.
8. Other Rationalistic Theories (Baur,
Renan), 170, 171.
9. Apologetic and Dogmatic Methods,
171, 172.
10. Grammatico-Historical Interpretation,
173.
(1) The Bible to be interpreted like other
books, 173.
(2) Principles of Interpretation grounded in
the Rational Nature of man, 173, 174.
(3) The Bible, however, a peculiar book, 174.
CHAPTER III.
The Primary Meaning of Words.
1. Words the Elements of Language, 175.
2. Value and Pleasure of etymological
studies, 175, 176.
(1) Illustrated by the word kiacXijola ,
176, 177.
(2) Illustrated by the word “|Q3, 177,
178.
3. Value of Comparative Philology, 178.
4. Rare words and an at; heynpeva, 179.
5. Determining sense of Compound words,
180.
CHAPTER IV.
The Usus Loquendi.
1. How the meaning of words becomes
changed, 181.
2. Importance of attending to Usus Lo¬
quendi, 181.
3. Means of ascertaining the Usus Lo¬
quendi : —
(1) By the writer’s own Definitions, 181,
(2) By the immediate Context, 182.
(3) By the Nature of the Subject, 183.
(4) By Antithesis or Contrast, 184.
(5) By Hebraic Parallelisms, 185.
(6) By relations of Subject, Predicate,
Adjuncts, 186.
(7) By comparison of Parallel Passages, 188.
(8) By common and familiar Usage, 187.
(9) By the help of Ancient Versions, 188, 189.
(.10) By Ancient Glossaries and Scholia, 190.
CHAPTER V.
Synonymes.
1. Some words have many Meanings, 191.
2. Many different words have like Mean¬
ing, 191.
3. Seven Hebrew words for Putting to
Death, 192-194.
4. Twelve Hebrew words for Sin, or Evil,
194-197.
5. Synonymes of the New Testament: —
(1) K aivbq and veoq, 198.
(2) B/of and fo?), 199.
(3) 'Ayandu and 04/lecj, 200.
(4) Old a and ytvcbakcj, 201.
(5) ’A pvia, npdfiara, and n po/Sdna, 201.
(6) Boatcu and noipaivu, 201, 202.
CHAPTER VI.
The Grammatico-historical Sense.
1. Grammatico-historical Sense defined,
203.
2. Quotation from Davidson, 203, 204.
3. General Principles and Methods of as¬
certaining tiie Grammatico-historical
Sense, 204, 205.
4. Words and Sentences can have but one
Meaning in one place, 205.
5. Narratives of Miracles to be understood
literally, 205.
6. Jephthah’s daughter a Burnt-offering,
206.
7. Jesus’ Resurrection a literal historical
Fact, 207, 208.
8. Grammatical Accuracy of the New Tes¬
tament, 208.
9. Significance of the Greek Tenses, 208,
209.
CHAPTER VII.
Context, Scope, and Plan.
1. Context, Scope, and Plan defined, 210.
2. The Scope of some Books formally an¬
nounced, 211.
3. Plan and Scope of Genesis seen in its
Contents and Structure, 211, 212.
6
CONTENTS AND ANALYTICAL OUTLINE.
4. Plan and Scope of the Book of Exodus,
212, 213.
5. Subject and Plan of the Epistle to the
Romans, 213, 214.
6. The Context, near and remote : —
(1) Illustrated by Isa. lii, 13-liii, 12, 214, 215.
(2) Illustrated by Matt, xi, 12, 215-218.
(3) Illustrated by Gal. v, 4, 218, 219.
7. The Connexion may be Historical, Dog¬
matical, Logical, or Psychological,
219.
8. Importance of studying Context, Scope,
and Plan, 219.
9. Critical Tact and Ability needed, 220.
CHAPTER VIII.
Comparison of Parallel Passages.
1. Some Passages of Scripture without
logical connexion, 221.
2. Value of Parallel Passages, 221.
3. The Bible a Self-interpreting Book, 222.
4. Parallels Verbal and Real, 223.
5. All Parallels must have real Correspon¬
dency, 223.
6. The word Hate in Luke xiv, 26, ex¬
plained by Parallel Passages, 224, 225.
7. Jesus’ words to Peter in Matt, xvi, 18,
explained by Parallel Texts, 225-229.
8. Large portions of Scripture parallel, 230.
CHAPTER IX.
The Historical Standpoint.
1. Importance of knowing the Historical
Standpoint of a writer, 231.
2. Historical Knowledge essential, 231.
3. Difficulty of transferring one’s self into
a remote age, 232.
4. Personal sanctity of ancient Worthies
often unduly exalted, 232.
5. Historical Occasions of the Psalms,
233, 234.
6. Places as well as Times to be studied : —
(1) Shown by Journeys and Epistles of Paul,
235, 236.
(2) Historical and Geographical Accuracy of
Scripture proven by careful Research,
236, 237.
7. The Historical Standpoint of the Apoc¬
alypse : —
(1) External Evidence dependent solely on
Irenaeus, 237, 238.
(21 John’s own Testimony (Rev. i, 9), 239.
(3) Internal Evidence. Six Points, 240, 241.
(4) Great delicacy of Discrimination neces¬
sary, 242.
8. Questions of Historical Criticism in¬
volved, 242.
CHAPTER X.
Figurative Language.
1. Tropes many and various, 243.
2. Origin and Necessity of Figurative Lan¬
guage, 243, 244.
3. Figures of Speech suggestive of Divine
Harmonies, 244, 245.
4. Principal Sources of Scriptural Ima¬
gery, 246, 247.
5. Specific rules for determining when
Language is Figurative are imprac¬
ticable and unnecessary, 247.
6. Figures of Words and Figures of
Thought, 248.
7. Metonymy : —
(1) Of Cause and Effect, 248.
(2) Of Subject and Adjunct, 249.
(3) Of the Sign and the Thing Signified, 250.
8. Synecdoche, 250.
9. Personification, 251.
10. Apostrophe, 252.
11. Interrogation, 252.
12. Hyperbole, 253.
13. Irony, 253.
CHAPTER XI.
Simile and Metaphor.
1. Simile defined and illustrated, 254.
2. Crowding of Similes together, 255.
3. Similes self-interpreting, 255.
4. Pleasure afforded by Similes, 256.
5. Assumed Comparisons or Illustrations,
257.
6. Metaphor defined and illustrated, 258.
7. Sources of Scriptural Metaphors : —
(1) Natural Scenery, 259.
(2) Ancient Customs, 259.
(3) Habits of Animals, 259, 260.
(4) Ritual Ceremonies, 260.
8. Elaborated and Mixed Metaphors, 261.
9. Uncertain Metaphorical Allusions : —
(1) Loosing of locks (Judges v, 2), 262, 263.
(2) Boiling heart (Psa. xlv, 1), 263.
(3) Buried in Baptism (Rom. vi, 4 ; Col. ii, 12),
263, 264.
CHAPTER XII.
Fables, Riddles, and Enigmas.
1. Of the more notable Tropes of Scrip¬
ture, 265.
2. Characteristics of the Fable, 265. "
(1) Jotham’s Fable, 266.
(2) Jehoash’s Fable, 266, 267.
3. Characteristics of the Riddle, 268.
(1) Samson’s Riddle, 268.
(2) Number of the Beast (Rev. xiii, 18), 269.
(3) Obscure Proverbs, 269.
(4) Lamech’s Song, 270,
4. Enigma distinguished and defined, 270,
271.
(1) Enigmatical element in Jesus’ discourse
with Nicodemus, 271.
(2) In his discourse with the Samaritan wom¬
an, 272.
(3) Enigma of the Sword in Luke xxii, 36, 273.
(4) Enigmatical language addressed to Peter
in John xxi, 18, 273.
(5) Figure of the Two Eagles in Ezek. xvii,
274, 275.
CHAPTER XIII.
Interpretation of Parables.
1. Pre-eminence of Parabolic Teaching,
276.
2. The Parable defined, 276, 277.
CONTENTS AND ANALYTICAL OUTLINE.
7
3. General Use of Parables, 277.
4. Special Reason and Purpose of Jesus’
Parables, 278, 279.
5. Parables serve to test Character, 280.
6. Superior beauty of Scripture Parables,
280.
7. Three essential elements of a Parable,
281.
8. Three principal Rules for the Inter¬
pretation of Parables, 281, 282.
9. Principles illustrated in the Parable
of the Sower, 282.
10. Parable of the Tares, and its Interpre¬
tation, 283.
(1) Things explained and things unnoticed
in the model Expositions of Jesus, 284.
(2) We may notice some things which Jesus
did not emphasize, 284, 285.
(3) Suggestive Words and Allusions deserve
attention and comment, 285.
(4) Not specific Rules, but sound and dis¬
criminating Judgment, must guide the
Interpreter, 236.
11. Isaiah’s Parable of the Vineyard, 287.
12. Parable of the Wicked Husbandman,
288.
13. Comparison of analogous Parables,
289.
(1) Marriage of King’s Son and Wicked Hus¬
bandman, 289, 290.
(2) Marriage of King’s Son and Great Sup¬
per, 290, 291.
14. Old Testament Parables, 292.
15. All the Parables of Jesus in the Syn¬
optic Gospels, 293.
16. Parable of the Labourers in the Vine¬
yard : —
(1) Mistakes of Interpreters, 294.
(2) Occasion and Scope, 294, 295.
(3) Prominent Points in the Parable, 296.
(4) The Parable primarily an Admonition to
the Disciples, 296, 297.
17. Parable of the Unjust Steward : —
(1) Occasion and Aim, 297.
(2) Unauthorized Additions, 298.
(3) Jesus’ own Application, 298.
(4) The Rich Man to be understood as Mam¬
mon, 300.
(5) Geikie’s Comment, 301.
CHAPTER XIV.
Interpretation of Allegories.
1. Allegory to be distinguished from Par¬
able, 302.
2. Allegory a continued Metaphor, 202,
303.
3. Same hermeneutical Principles apply to
Allegories as to Parables, 304.
4. Illustrated by Prov. v, 15-18: —
(1) Main Purpose to be first sought, 304.
(2) Particular Allusions to be studied in the
light of Main Purpose, 305, 306.
5. Allegory of Old Age in Eccles. xii, 3-7 : —
(1) Various Interpretations, 306.
(2) The old age of a Sensualist, 307.
(3) Uncertain Allusions, 307.
(4) Blending of Meaning and Imagery, 308.
(5) The Hermeneutical Principles to be kept
in view, 309.
6. Allegory of False Prophets in Ezek.
xiii, 10-15.
7. Allegory of 1 Cor. iii, 10-15: —
(1) Are the materials Persons or Doctrines?
311.
(2) Both views allowable, 311, 312.
(3) The Passage paraphrased, 313.
(4) A Warning rather than a Prophecy, 313,
314.
8. Allegory of 1 Cor. v, 6-8 : —
(1) The Context, 315.
(2) The Passage paraphrased, 315.
(3) The more important Allusions to be care¬
fully studied, 316.
9. Allegory of the Christian Armour
(Eph. vi), 316.
10. Allegory of the Door and the Good
Shepherd, (John x): —
(1) Occasion and Scope, 317.
(2) Import of particular parts, 318.
(3) Jesus’ Explanation enigmatical, 319, 320.
11. Paul’s Allegory of the Covenants: —
(1) It is Peculiar and Exceptional, 321.
(2) The historical Facts are accepted as true,
321.
(3) The Correspondent Clauses, 322.
(4) Paul’s example as Authority in Allego¬
rizing Scripture narratives, 322, 323.
(5) Such methods to be avoided, or used most
sparingly, 324.
12. Interpretation of Canticles: —
(1) Allegorical Methods, 324, 325.
(2) Objections to the Allegorical Method, 325.
(3) Canticles a Dramatic Parable, 326.
(4) A literal basis under oriental Poetry, 327.
(5) Details not to be pressed into mystic Sig¬
nificance, 327.
CHAPTER XV.
Proverbs and Gnomic Poetry.
1. Pi’overbs defined and described, 328,
329.
2. Their Use among most ancient Nations,
329.
3. Hermeneutical Principles to be ob¬
served : —
(1) Discrimination of Form and Figure, 330.
(2) Critical and Practical Sagacity, 331.
(3) Attention to Context and Parallelism, 332.
(4) Common Sense and sound Judgment, 332,
333.
CHAPTER XVI.
Interpretation of Types.
1. Types and Symbols Defined and Dis¬
tinguished : —
(1) Crabb’s Definition, 334.
(2) Examples of Types and Symbols, 334.
(3) Analogy with certain Figures of Speech,
335.
(4) Principal Distinction between Types and
Symbols, 336.
2. Essential Characteristics of the Type : — ■
(1) Notable Points of Resemblance between
Type and thing typified, 337.
(2) Must be Divinely Appointed, 337.
(3) Must prefigure something Future, 338.
3. Classes of Old Testament Types : —
(1) Typical Persons, 338.
(2) Typical Institutions, 339.
(3 1 Typical Offices, 339.
(4) Typical Events, 339.
(5) Typical Actions, 339 340.
8
CONTENTS AND ANALYTICAL OUTLINE.
4. Hermeneutical principles to be ob¬
served : —
(1) All real Points of Resemblance to be
noted : —
1. The Brazen Serpent (Nmn. xxi, 4-9), 341.
2. Melchizedek and Christ (Heb. vii), 342.
(2) Notable Differences and Contrasts to be
observed
1. Moses and Christ (Heb. iii, 1-6), 343.
2. Adam and Christ (Rom. v, 12-21), 343.
5. Old Testament Types fully apprehended
only by the Gospel revelation, 344.
6. Limitation of Types : —
(1) Bishop Marsh’s Statement, 345.
(2) Too restrictive a Principle, 345.
(3) A broader Principle allowable, 346.
(4) Qualifying Observation, 346.
CHAPTER XVII.
Interpretation of Symbols.
1. Difficulties of the Subject, 347.
2. Principles and Methods of procedure,
347.
3. Classification of Symbols, 347, 348.
4. Examples of Visional Symbols : —
(1) The Almond Rod (Jer. i,'ll), 348.
(2) The Seething Pot (Jer. i, 13), 349.
(3) The Good and Bad Figs (Jer. xxiv),
349.
(4) The Summer Fruit (Amos viii, 1), 349.
(5) Resurrection of Dry Bones (Ezek. xxxvii),
359.
(6) The Golden Candlestick, 350.
(7) The Two Olive Trees (Zech. iv), 350,
351.
(8) The Great Image of Nebuchadnezzar’s
Dream (Dan. ii), 352.
(9) The Four Beasts of Dan. vii, 353.
(10) Riders, Horns, and Smiths of Zech. i, 353,
354.
(11) The Flying Roll and Ephah (Zech. v), 354,
355.
(12) The Four Chariots (Zech. vi), 355.
5. The above Examples, largely explained
by the Sacred Writers, authorize
three fundamental Principles : —
(1) The Names of Symbols are to be under¬
stood literally, 356.
(2) Symbols always denote something differ¬
ent from themselves, 356.
(3) A Resemblance, more or less minute, is
always traceable between Symbol and
thing Symbolized, 356.
6. No minute set of Hermeneutical Rules
practicable, 356.
7. Three general Principles all-import¬
ant : —
(1) A strict regard to the Historical Stand¬
point of the Writer or Prophet, 257.
(2) Like regard to Scope and Context, 257.
(3) Like regard to Analogy and Import of
similar Symbols and Figures elsewhere
used, 257.
8. Fairbairn’s Statement of general Prin¬
ciples : —
(1) The Image must be contemplated in its
broader Aspects, 357.
(2) Uniform and consistent Manner of In¬
terpretation, 357.
9. Same Principles for explaining Mate¬
rial Symbols, 357.
10. The Symbolism of Blood, 358.
11. The Symbolism of the Tabernacle: —
(1) Names of the Tabernacle and their Sig¬
nificance, 359.
(2) A Divine-human Relationship symbol¬
ized, 360, 361.
(3) The Tv/o Apartments, 361.
A. The Most Holy Place and its Sym¬
bols : —
1. The Ark, 361, 362.
2. The Capporetli or Mercyseat, 362.
3. The Cherubim, 862, 363.
B. The Holy Place and its Symbols: —
1. The Table of Showbrearl. 364.
2. The Golden Candlestick. 384.
3. The Altar of Incense, 365.
(4) Great Altar and Laver in the Court, 365.
(5) Symbolico-typical Action of High Priest,
366, 367.
(6) Graduated Sanctity of the Holy Places,
367, 368.
CHAPTER XVIII.
Symbolico-Typical Actions.
1. Acts performed in Visions, 369.
2. Symbolico-typical Acts of Ezekiel iv
and v : —
(1) The Actions Outward and Real, 370, 371.
(2) Five Objections considered, 371, 372.
3. Hosea’s Symbolical Marriages : —
(1) The Language implies a Real Event, 373.
(2) Supposed Impossibility based on Misap¬
prehension of Scope and Import, 374.
(3) The names Gomer and Diblaim not Sym¬
bolical, 375.
(4) Hengsten berg’s Unwarrantable Asser¬
tions, 375.
(5) The Facts as Stated not unsupposable, 376.
(6) Scope of the Passage indicated, 377.
(7) The Symbolical Names (Jezreel, Lo-ru-
hamah, and Lo-ammi), 377.
(8) The Prophet’s second Marriage to be
similarly explained, 378, 379.
4. Our Lord’s Miracles Symbolical, 379.
CHAPTER XIX.
Symbolical Numbers, Names, and Colours.
1. Process of ascertaining the Symbolism
of Numbers, 380.
2. Significance of Three, Four, Seven,
Ten, and Twelve, 380, 383.
3. Symbolical does not always exclude
literal sense of Numbers, 384.
4. Time, Times, and Half-a-Time, 384.
5. Forty -two Months, 384.
6. The Numbers Forty and Seventy, 385.
7. Prophetic Designations of Time, 385.
8. The Year-Day Theory : —
(1) Has no support in Num. xiv and Ezek. iv,
386, 387.
(2) Not sustained by Prophetic Analogy, 387
388
(3) Daniel’s Seventv Weeks not parallel, 388.
(4) Days nowhere properly mean Years, 388.
(5) Disproved by repeated failures in Inter¬
pretation, 389, 390.
9. The Thousand Years of Rev. xx, 390.
10. Symbolical Names : —
(1) Sodom and Egypt, 391.
(2) Babylon and Jerusalem, 391.
(3) Returning to Egypt, 392.
(4) David and Elijah, 392.
(5) Ariel, 392.
(6) Leviathan, 392.
CONTENTS AND ANALYTICAL OUTLINE.
9
11. Symbolism of Colours: —
(1) Rainbow and Tabernacle Colours, 393.
(2) Import of Colours inferred from their
Associations
1. Blue and its Associations, 393.
2. Purple and Scarlet, 393, 394.
3. White as symbol of Purity, 394.
4. Black and Red, 394.
12. Symbolical Import of Metals and Jew¬
els, 395.
CHAPTER XX.
Dreams and Prophetic Ecstasy.
1. Methods of Divine Revelation, 396.
2. The Dreams of Scripture, 396, 397.
3. Dreams evince latent Powers of the
Soul, 397.
4. Jacob’s Dream at Bethel, 397, 398.
6. Repetition of Dreams and Visions, 398,
399.
6. Prophetic or Visional Ecstasy : —
(1) David’s Messianic Revelations, 399.
(2) Ezekiel’s visional Rapture, 400.
(3) Other Examples of Ecstasy, 400, 401.
(4) The Prophet impersonating God, 402.
7. New Testament Glossolaly, or Speaking
with Tongues : — •
(1) The Facts as recorded, 402, 403.
(2) The Pentecostal Glossolaly symbolical,
403.
(3) A mysterious Exhibition of Soul-powers,
404.
CHAPTER XXI.
Prophecy and its Interpretation.
1. Magnitude and Scope of Scripture
Prophecy, 405.
2. Prophecy not merely Prediction but
Utterance of God’s Truth, 406.
3. Only Prophecies of the Future require
special Hermeneutics, 407.
4. History and Prediction should not be
Confused, 407.
5. Organic Relations of Prophecy : —
(1) Progressive Character of Messianic Proph¬
ecy, 408.
(2) Repetition of Oracles against Heathen
Powers, 409.
(3) Daniel’s Two Great Prophecies (chaps, ii
and vii) compared, 409, 410.
(4) The Little Horn of Dan. vii, 8, and viii, 9,
the same Power under different As¬
pects, 410.
(5) Other Prophetic Repetitions, 411.
6. Figurative and Symbolical Style of
Prophecy : —
(1) Imagery the most natural Form of ex¬
pressing Revelations obtained by Vis¬
ions and Dreams, 412.
1. Illustrated by Gen. iii. 15. 412.
2. Fairbairn on the Passage, 413.
(2) Poetic Form and Style of several Proph¬
ecies instanced, 413.
1. Isaiah xiii. 2-13 quoted, 414,
2. Refers to the Overthrow of Babvlon, 414,
415.
(3) Prominence of Symbols in the Apocalyptic
Books, 415.
(4) The Hermeneutical Principles to be ob¬
served, 415.
7. Analysis and Comparison of Similar
Prophecies : —
(1) Verbal Analogies, 416.
(2) Double Form of Apocalyptic Visions, 416.
(3) Analogies of Imagery, 417.
(4) Like Imagery applied to Different Ob¬
jects, 417.
(5) General Summary, 418.
CHAPTER XXII.
Daniel’s Vision of the Four Empires.
1. Value of Daniel’s Twofold Revelation
in illustrating Hermeneutical Prin¬
ciples, 418.
2. Three different Interpretations, 419.
3. Arguments for the Roman Theory con¬
sidered, 420, 421.
4. Subjective Presumptions must be set
aside, 421.
5. Daniel’s Historical Standpoint, 422.
6. Prominence of the Medes, 422.
7. The Varied but parallel Descriptions,
422, 423.
8. The Prophet should be allowed to ex¬
plain himself, 423, 424.
9. The Prophet’s Point of View in Dan.
viii, 424.
10. Inner Ilarmonv of all the Visions, 424,
425.
11. Alexander’s Kingdom and that of his
Successors not two different World-
Powers, 425, 426.
13. Conclusion: A Median World-Power
to be recognised as succeeding the
Babylonian, 426.
13. Each Book of Prophecy to be studied
as a Whole, 426.
CHAPTER XXIII.
Old Testament Apocalyptics.
1. Biblical Apocalyptics defined, 127.
2. Same Hermeneutical Principles required
as in other Prophecy, 428.
3. The Revelation of Joel : —
(1) Joel the oldest formal Apocalypse, 428.
(2) Analysis of Joel’s Prophecy, 429-431.
4. Ezekiel’s Visions : —
(1) Peculiarities of Ezekiel, 432.
(2) Analysis of Ezekiel's Prophecies, 432-437.
5. The Artistic Structure to be Studied,
437.
CHAPTER XXIV.
The Gospel Apocalypse.
1. Occasion of Jesus’ Apocalyptic Dis¬
course (Matt, xxiv), 438.
2. Various Opinions, 438, 439.
3. Lange’s Analysis, 439, 440.
4. The Question of the Disciples, 440.
5. Meaning of the End of the Age, 441.
6. Analysis of Matt, xxiv, xxv, 442, 343.
7. Time-Limitation of the Prophecy, 443.
8. Import of Matt, xxiv, 14, 444.
9. Import of Luke xxi, 24, 445.
10
CONTENTS AND ANALYTICAL OUTLINE.
10. Import of Matt, xxiv, 29-31 : —
(1) Literal Sense as urged by many Exposi¬
tors, 445.
(2) Analogous Prophecies compared, 446.
(3) Language of Matt, xxiv, 31), taken from
Dan. vii, 13, 446, 447.
(4) The Facts of Matt, xxiv, 31, not neces¬
sarily visible to human eyes, 447, 448.
(5) Import of ivrfeuc, immediately (verse
29), 448.
11. The Judgment of the Nations (Matt.
xxv, 81-46): —
(1) The Scripture Doctrine of Judgment, 449.
(2) Not limited to one Last Day, 450.
(3) A Divine Procedure which begins with
Christ’s Enthronement, and must con¬
tinue until he delivers up the Kingdom
to the Father, 450.
12. The Parousia coincident with the Ruin
of the Temple and the End of the
Pre-Messianic Age, 450, 451.
13. This Interpretation harmonizes all the
New Testament Declarations of the
Nearness of the Parousia, 452.
14. No valid Objections, 453.
CHAPTER XXY.
The Pauline Eschatology.
1. Import of 1 Thess. iv, 13-17 : —
(1) Literal Translation, 454.
(2) Four Things clearly expressed, 454.
(3) Import of we, the liviny, who remain
1. Views of Liinemann and Alford, 455.
2. View of Ellicott. 456.
3. The Two Opinions compared, 456.
4. The words imply an Expectation of a
Speedy Coming of the Lord, 456.
5. The Exegetical Dilemma, 457.
6. The Apostle’s doctrine based on most em¬
phatic Statements of Jesus, 457, 458.
2. All here described may have occurred
in Paul’s generation, 458.
3. Not contradicted by 2 Thess. ii, 1-9,
*459.
4. The Apostasy an event of that gen¬
eration, 460.
5. The Man of Sin described in language
appropriated from Daniel’s Proph¬
ecy of Antiochus Epiphanes, 460.
6. The Prophecy fulfilled in Nero : —
(1) Nero a revelation of Antichrist, 460.
(2) The Language not unsuitable to the
Death of Nero, 460.
(3) Equivalent to Language of Dan. vii, 11,
461.
(4) Nero’s Relations to Judaism and Chris¬
tianity, 462.
7. Import of 1 Cor. xv, 20-28, 462, 463.
8. Import of Phil, iii, 10, 11, 464.
9. Import of Luke xx, 85, 464.
10. Import of John v, 24-29, 464, 465.
CHAPTER XXVI.
The Apocalypse of John.
1. Systems of Interpretation, 466.
2. Historical Standpoint of the Writer,
466, 467.
3. Plan of the Apocalypse, 467.
4. Artificial Form of the Apocalypse, 468.
5. The Great Theme is announced (chap.
i, 7) in the language of Matt, xxiv, 80,
468.
6. Part I. Revelation of the Lamb : —
(1) In the Epistles to the Seven Churches, 469.
(2) By the Opening of the Seven Seals, 469,
470.
1. The Martyr Scene (vi. 9, 10). 470.
2. The Sixth Seal (vi, 12—17), 470.
3. Striking Analogies of Jesus’ Words, 470,
471.
(3) By the Sounding of the Seven Trumpets,
471.
1. The Plague from the Abyss, 471. 472.
2. The Armies of the Euphrates, 472.
3. The Mighty Angel arrayed with Cloud
and Rainbow, 473.
4. The Last Trumpet, 474.
7. Part II. Revelation of the Bride: —
(1) Vision of the Woman and the Dragon, 475.
(2) Vision of the Two Beasts, 476.
(3) Vision of Mount Zion, 477.
(4) Vision of the Seven Last Plagues, 478.
(5) Vision of the Mystic Babylon, 478.
1. Mystery of the Woman and the Beast, 479.
2. The Beast from the Abyss, 480, 4S1.
3. Fall of the Mystic Babylon, 482, 483.
(6) Vision of Parousia, Millennium, and Judg¬
ment, 483.
1. A Sevenfold Vision, 483.
2. The Millennium is the Gospel Period or
Age, 484.
3. The Cliiliastic Interpretation, 484, 485.
4. Chiliastic Interpretation without sufficient
warrant, 485.
5. The Last Judgment. 486.
6. Some of these Visions transcend the Time¬
limits of the Book, 4S7.
7. The Millennium of Rev. xx now in prog¬
ress, 487. 488.
(7) Vision of the New Jerusalem, 488.
1. Meaning of the New Jerusalem. Three
views, 489.
2. Comparison of Ilag. ii, 6. 7, and Heb. xii,
26-28, 489. 490.
3. Allusion of Heb. xii, 22. 23, 490, 491.
4. New Jerusalem the Heavenly Outline of
what the Tabernacle symbolized, 491.
5. It is the New Testament Church and
Kingdom of God, 492.
8. Summary of New Testament Apocalyp-
tics and Eschatology, 492, 493.
CHAPTER XXVII.
No Double Sense in Prophecy.
1. Theory of a Double Sense unsettles all
sound Interpretation, 493.
2. Typology and Double Sense of Lan¬
guage not to be confounded, 494.
3. The suggestive Fulness of the Prophetic
Scriptures no Proof of a Double
Sense, 495.
4. No misleading Designations of Time in
Prophecy, 495, 496.
5. Misuse of Peter’s language in 2 Pet.
iii, 8, 496.
6. Bengel’s fallacious treatment of Matt.
xxiv, 39, 497, 498.
7. Practical Applications of Prophecy may
be many, 498.
8. Mistaken Notions of the Bible itself the
Cause of much False Exposition, 499.
CONTENTS AND ANALYTICAL OUTLINE.
11
CHAPTER XXVIII.
Scripture Quotations in the Scriptures.
L Four Classes of Quotations: —
(1) Old Test. Quotations in Old Test., 500.
(2) New Test. Quotations from Old Test., 500.
(3) New Test. Quotations in New Test., 501.
(4) Quotations from Apocryphal Sources, 501.
2. Only the Old Testament Quotations in
the New Testament call for special
hermeneutical treatment, 502.
3. Sources of New Testament Quotation : —
(1) Hebrew Text, 502.
(2) Septuagint Version, 502.
4. No uniform Method of Quotation, 502,
503.
5. Inaccurate Quotations may become cur¬
rent, 503.
6. Formulas and Methods of Quotation,
504, 505.
7. The formula Iva Tc^rjpcod-?): —
1) Peculiar to Matthew and John, 505.
2) Views of Bengel and Meyer, 500.
(3) The Telic force of Iva generally to he
maintained, 508, 507.
(4) The Ecbatic sense need not in all cases be
denied, 507.
(5) "Iva telic in formulas of Prophetic cita¬
tion, 508.
(6) Supposed exception of Matt, ii, 15, 508, 509.
8. Purposes of Scripture Quotation : —
(1) For showing its Fulfilment, 509.
(2) For establishing a Doctrine, 510.
(3) For confuting Opponents, 510.
(4) For Authority, Rhetorical purposes, and
Illustration, 510.
CHAPTER XXIX.
The False and the True Accommodation.
1. Rationalistic Theory to be repudiated,
511.
2. The True Idea of Accommodation, 512.
3. Illustrated by Jer. xxxi, 15, as quoted
in Matt, ii, 17, 18, 512, 513.
CHAPTER XXX.
Alleged Discrepancies of the Scriptures.
1. General Character of the Discrepan¬
cies, 514.
2. Causes of the Discrepancies : —
(1) Errors of Copyists, 514.
(2) Various Names to one person, 514.
(3) Different ways of reckoning Time, 514.
(4) Different Standpoint and Aim, 514.
3. Discrepancies in Genealogical Tables: —
(1) Jacob’s Family Record : —
1. The different Lists compared, 515-517.
2. The Historical Standpoint of each List, 517,
518
3. Hebrew Style and Usage, 518, 519.
4. Substitution of Names, 519.
5. Desire to have a definite and suggestive
Number, 529.
(2) The Two Genealogies of Jesus :—
1. Different Hypotheses, 521.
2. Views of Jerome and Africanus, 522.
3. No Hypothesis can claim absolute Certain¬
ty, 523.
4. Hervey’s Theory, 523, 524.
(3) Genealogies not Useless Scripture, 524.
4. Numerical Discrepancies, 525.
5. Doctrinal and Ethical Discrepancies : —
(1) Supposed Conflict between Law and Gos¬
pel, 526.
(2) Civil Rights maintained by Jesus and
Paul, 527.
(3) The Avenging of Blood, 528.
(4) Difference between Paul and James on
Justification
1. Different Personal Experiences, 529, 530.
2. Different Modes of Apprehending and Ex¬
pressing Great Truths, 580.
3. Different Aim of each writer, 531.
4. Individual Freedom of each writer, 531.
6. Value of Eiblical Discrepancies : —
(1) To stimulate Mental Effort, 532.
(2) To illustrate Harmony of Bible and Na¬
ture, 352.
(3) To prove the absence of Collusion, 352.
(4) To show the Spirit above the Letter, 352.
(5) To serve as a Test of Moral Character, 352.
CHAPTER XXXI.
Alleged Contradictions of Science.
1. Statement of Allegations and Issues?
533.
2. Attempts at Reconciliation, 533.
3. Fundamental Considerations, 533, 534.
4. Three Principal Points of Contro-
, versy : —
A The Record of Miracles:—
(1) Assumed Impossibility of Miracles, 534.
(2) No common Ground between Atheist,
Pantheist, and Christian, 535.
(3) Deist cannot consistently deny the Possi¬
bility of Miracles, 535.
(4) Three important Considerations :—
1. Miracles Parts of a Divine Order, 535, 536.
2. God's Revelation involves the Plan of a
great Historical Movement of which Mir¬
acles form a Part, 536, 537.
3. Scripture Miracles worthy of God, 537, 538.
B. Descriptions of Physical phenom¬
ena :—
(1) Supposed Evidences of False Astronomy,
538.
(2) Standing Still of the Sun and Moon, 540.
(3) Narrative of the Deluge : —
1. Objections to its Universality, 541, 542.
2. Universal terms often applied in Scripture
to Limited Areas, 543.
3. The Noachic Deluge local, but probably
Universal as to the Human Race, 543.
C. The Origin of the World and of
Man :—
(1) The Mosaic Narrative of Creation, 544.
(2) Geological Method of Interpretation, 544,
545.
(3) Cosmological Method of Interpretation,
545, 546.
(4) Idealistic Method of Interpretation, 546-
548.
(5) Grammatico-historical Interpretation : —
1. Meaning of Heavens, Land, and Create,
549.
2. Biblical Narrative not a universal Cosmog¬
ony, 549, 550.
3. It describes the Formation of the Land of
Eden, 550.
4. This view not a Hypothesis, but required
by a strict Interpretation of the Hebrew
record, 551.
5. Doctrines and far-reaching Implications of
the Narrative, 551. 552.
6. No valid Presumption against a limited
Creation more than against a limited
Flood, 552.
12
CONTEXTS AND ANALYTICAL OUTLINE
CHAPTER XXXII.
Harmony and Diversity of the Gospels.
1. The Life of Jesus a Turning Point in
the History of the World, 553.
2. The Gospels the Chief Ground of Con¬
flict between Faith and Unbelief, 553,
654.
3. Attempts at constructing Gospel Har¬
monies, 554.
4. Use of such Harmonies, 555.
5. Three Points of Consideration: —
(1) The Origin of the Gospels: —
1. An original Oral Gospel, 556.
2. No absolute Certainty as to the Particular
Origin of each Gospel, 557.
3. Probable Suppositions, 557, 558.
(2) Distinct Plan and Purpose of each
Gospel
1. Tradition of the Early Church, 558.
2. Matthew’s Gospel adapted to Jews, 559.
3. Mark’s Gospel adapted to Roman taste, 559.
4. Luke’s, the Pauline Gospel to the Gentiles,
560.
5. John’s, the Spiritual Gospel of the Life of
Faith, 560, 561.
(3) Characteristics of the Several Evan¬
gelists : —
1. Noticeable Characteristics of Matthew’s
Gospel, 561, 562.
2. Omissions of the earlier Gospels may have
had a Purpose, 562, 563.
3. Harmony of the Gospels enhanced by their
Diversity, 563, 564.
6. Unreasonableness of Magnifying the al¬
leged Discrepancies of the Gospels,
565.
CHAPTER XXXIII.
Progress of Doctrine and Analogy of Faith.
1. The Holy Scriptures a Growth, 566.
2. Genesis a Series of Evolutions and
Revelations, 567, 568.
3. The Mosaic legislation a New Era of
Revelation, 568.
1) Doctrine of God, 568, 569.
2) Superior Ethical and Civil Code, 569.
(3) Pentateuch fundamental to Old Testa¬
ment Revelations, 570.
4. Divine Revelation continued after
Moses, 570.
5. Theology of the Psalter, 570, 571.
6. The Solomonic Proverbial Philosophy,
571.
7. Old Testament Revelation reached its
highest Spirituality in the Great
Prophets, 572-575.
8. Prophetic link between the Old and
New Testaments, 575.
9. Christ’s teachings the Substance but
not the Finality of Christian Doc¬
trine, 575.
10. Revelations continued after Jesus’
Ascension, 576.
11. The Epistles contain the elaborated
Teachings of the Apostles, 576. 577.
12. The Apocalypse a fitting Conclusion
of the New Testament Canon, 577,
578.
13. Attention to Progress of Doctrine a
Help to Interpretation, 578.
14. The Analogy of Faith : —
(1) Progress of Doctrine explains the true
Analogy of Faith, 579.
(2) Two Degrees of the Analogy of Faith : —
1. Positive, 580.
2. General, 5S0.
(3) Limitation and Use of the Analogy of
Faith as a Principle of Interpretation,
581.
CHAPTER XXXIV.
Doctrinal and Practical Use of Scripture.
1. Paul’s Statement of the Uses of Scrip¬
ture (2 Tim. iii, 16), 582.
2. Roman Doctrine of Authoritative In¬
terpretation, 582.
3. The Protestant Principle of Using
one’s own Reason, 583.
4. Statement and Defence of Scripture
Doctrine must accord with correct
Hermeneutics, 583.
5. Biblical and Historical Theology dis¬
tinguished, 584.
6. Human Tendency to be wise above
what is written, 585.
7. True and False Methods of ascertain¬
ing Scripture Doctrine : —
(1) The Doctrine of God, 585, 586.
1. Citation from the Atkanasian Creed, 385.
2. Doctrinal Symbols not unscriptural, 586.
3. Plural Form of the word Elohim, 587.
4. Language of Gen. xix. 24, 587.
5. The Angel of Jehovah, 5S8.
6. New Testament Doctrine of God, 588.
7. Mysterious Distinctions in the Divine Na¬
ture, 589.
8. We should avoid dogmatic Assertion and
doubtful texts or readings, 590.
(2) The Doctrine of Vicarious Atonement,
590, 591.
(3) The Doctrine of Eternal Punishment. 591.
1. Absence of Scriptural Hope for the Wick¬
ed, 592.
2. Import of Matt, xii, 32, and Mark iii, 29,
592.
3. Preaching to the Spirits in Prison, 592.
(4) Doctrine not confined to one portion,
class, or style of Scriptures, 593.
(5) Eschatology taught chiefly in Figurative
Language, 594.
(6) Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Dead,
594.
(7) Freedom from Prepossessions and Pre¬
sumptions, 595.
(8) Texts not to be cited ad libitum.
8. New Testament Doctrine not clear
without the help of the Old, and
vice versa , 596, 597.
9. Confusion of Hebrew and Aryan Modes
of Thought, 597.
10. Practical and Homiletical Use of Scrip¬
ture : —
(1) Must be based on true grammatical In¬
terpretation, 508.
(2) Personal Experiences, Promises, Admo¬
nitions, and Warnings have lessons for
all time, 598, 599.
(3) Practical Applications of Scripture, if
built upon erroneous Interpretation,
are thereby made of no effect, 600.
CONTENTS AND ANALYTICAL OUTLINE.
13
I* ART THIRD.
HISTORY OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
CHAPTER I. ,
Ancient Jewish Exegesis.
1. Value and Importance of History of
Interpretation, 603.
2. Origin and Variety of Interpretations,
603.
3. Ezra and the Great Synagogue, 604,
605.
4. The Halachah and Hagadah, 606—610.
6. Philo Judaeus and his Works, 611-613.
6. The Targums, 614.
7. The Talmud, 615-617.
CHAPTER II.
Later Rabbinical Exegesis.
1. The Sect of the Karaites (Saadia, Ben
Ali), 618, 619.
2. Schools of Tiberias, Sora and Pumba-
ditha, 620.
3. Noted Rabbinical Exegetes : —
Rashi, Aben Ezra, Maimonides, Kimchi, Cas-
pi, Tanehum, Ralbag, Abrabanel, Levita,
Mendelssohn, 620-628.
4. Modern Rationalistic Judaism, 628.
5. General Summary, 628.
CHAPTER III.
The Earliest Christian Exegesis.
1. Indicated in the New Testament Scrip¬
tures, 629, 630.
2. Allegorizing Tendency of the Post-Apos¬
tolic Age, 630.
3. Apostolic Fathers : —
(1) Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Ignatius,
631, 632.
(2) Value of the Apostolic Fathers, 632, 633.
4. Justin Martyr, Tiieophilus, Melito, and
Irenyeus, 633-638.
CHAPTER IV.
Later Patristic Exegesis.
1. School of Alexandria, 637.
Clement, Origen, Dionysius, Pierius, Peter
Martyr, Hesychius, 638-642.
2. School of Caesarea, 642.
Gregory Thauraaturgus, Pamphilus, Eusebi¬
us, Cyril of Alexandria, 643, 644.
3. The School of Antioch, 644.
Africanus, Dorotheus, Lucian, Eustathius,
Diodorus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Chry¬
sostom, Isidore, Theodoret, 644-649.
4. Schools of Edessa and Nisibis, 650.
Ephraem Syrus, Barsumas, Ibas, 631.
6. Other eminent Fathers: —
Athanasius, Epiphanies, Basil, Gregory, Ul-
philas, Andreas, Arethas, 651, 652.
6. Fathers of the Western Church: —
Hippolytus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Victorinus,
Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Pe-
lagius, Tichonius, Vincent, Cassiodorus,
Gregory the Great, 653-659.
7. General Character of Patristic Exege¬
sis, 660.
CHAPTER V.
Exegesis of the Middle Ages.
1. No great Exegetes during this Period,
661.
2. The Catenists : —
Procopius of Gaza, Bede, Alcuin, Maurus,
Haymo, Strabo, Druthmar, (Ecumentus,
Theophylact, Lanfranc, Willeram, Rupert,
Lombard, Zigctbenus, Joachim, Aquinas,
Bonaventura, Hugo, Albert, 661-667.
3. Writers of the Fourteenth and Fif¬
teenth Centuries : —
Nicholas de Lyra, Wycliffe, Huss, Wessel,
Gerson, Laurenti us Valla, Reuchltn, Eras¬
mus, Lefevre, Mirandula, Sanctes Pag-
ninus, GJ7-672.
4- The First Polyglots, 67?.
CHAPTER VI.
Exegesis of the Reformation.
1. The Dawn of a New Era, 673.
2. The great Expositors of this Period : —
Luther, Melanchthon, Zwingle, (Ecolampa-
dius, Pellican, Munster, Calvin, Beza, Cas-
tellio, Bullinger, Flacius, Piscator, Juniug,
Marlorat, Maldonatus, 673-680.
3. Translations of the Bible, 680, 681.
4. Antwerp and Nuremberg Polyglots, 681.
5. Tendencies of Lutheran and Reformed
Parties, 681, 682.
CHAPTER VII.
Exegesis of the Seventeenth Century.
1. Progress of Biblical Studies, 683.
(1; Hebrew Philology promoted by Buxtorf,
Schindler, Vatablus, De Dieu, Drusius,
and Scaliger, 683.
(2) King James’ English Version, 683.
(3) Paris and London Polyglots, 684.
(4) Critici Sacri and Poole’s Synopsis, 684, 6S5.
2. Distinguished English Exegetes : —
Lightfoot, Pocock, Hammond, Ainsworth,
Gataker, Usher, Owen, Mede, 685-688.
3. French Biblical Scholars, 688.
Casaubon, Cappel, Simon. P.ochart, 688, 689.
4. Biblical Scholars in Holland : —
Arminius. Grotius, Voetius, Cocceius, Leus-
den, GS9-692.
5. German Biblical Scholars : —
Olearius, Glassius. Schmidt, Pfeiffer, 693.
6. Progress of Free Thought, 694.
14
CONTENTS AND ANALYTICAL OUTLINE.
CHAPTER VIII.
Exegesis of the Eighteenth Century.
1. Eighteenth Century a period of En¬
lightenment, 695.
2. Hutch, German, and French Biblical
Scholars : —
Vitringa, Witsius, Lampe, Yenema, Le Clerc,
Schultens, Relaud, Schoettgen, Meuschen,
Sureniiusius, Leydecker, Wesseling, J. 0.
Wolf, Alberti, Kypke, Calmet, Beausobre,
Quesuei, 695-697.
3. Progress in Textual Criticism : —
Houbigant, Kennicott, De Rossi, Mill, Bent¬
ley, Bengel, Wetstein, Griesbacb, 698-700.
4. Textual Criticism opposed by the Voe-
tian School, 700.
5. English Exegetes : —
Patrick, Whitby, W. Lowth, R. Lowth, Henry,
Doddridge, Dodd, Scott, Gill, Chandler,
Pearce, Macknight, Campbell, Newcome,
Blayney, Green, Wells, Wesley, 700-703.
6. English Heistical Writers : —
Blount, Toland, Shaftesbury, Collins, Wool-
ston, Tindal, Morgan, Chubb, Boling-
broke, Hume, 703, 704.
7. English Anti-deistical Writers: —
Chandler, Sherlock, Butler, Conybeare, Le-
land, Waterland, Warburton, 705.
3. French Unbelief : —
Condillac, Voltaire, Diderot, Rousseau, Vol-
ney, 705.
9. Rise and Decline of Pietism : —
Spener,Francke, Michaelis, Mosbeim, Koppe,
Ernesti, Keil, Herder, C.von Wolf, Lange,
Berleburg Bible and Wertheim Bible,
Baumgaiten, 705-709.
10. Growth of German Rationalism : —
Semler, Edelmann, Bahrdt, Nicolai, Wolfen-
biittel Fragments, Teller’s Lexicon, Schol¬
arly form of Rationalism, 710, 711.
11. Immanuel Kant and Philosophical
Criticism, 7 12.
CHAPTER IX.
Exegesis of the Nineteenth Century.
1. Progress of Biblical Science, 713.
2. German Rationalistic School of Inter¬
preters : —
Eichhorn, Paulus, Critics of the Pentateuch
(Astruc, Vater, etc.), Heyne, Gabler, G. L.
Bauer, Strauss, Weisse, Bruno Baur, F. C.
Baur and the Tubingen School, French
Critical School (Renan, etc.), 713-717.
3. German Mediation School of Interpre¬
ters : —
Schleiermacher, Neauder, De Wette, Liicke,
Rosenmuller, Maurer, Bertholdt, Len-
gerke, Kuinoel, Gesenius, Ewald, Hupfeld,
Hoffmann, 717-722.
4. German Evangelical School of Inter¬
preters : —
Storr and Old Tubingen School, Hengsten-
berg, Havernick, Bleek, Umbreit,Ullmann,
Tholuck, Stier, Olshausen, Baumgarten,
Philippi, Winer, Meyer, Auberlen, Kurtz,
Keil, Delitzsch, J. P. Lange, Godet, Lut-
hardt, 723-727.
5. English Exegetes : —
Adam Clarke, Benson, Watson, Henderson,
Bloomfield, Kitto, Horne, Davidson, Al¬
ford, Wordsworth, Trench, Ellicott, J. B.
Lightfoot, Eadie, Gloag, Murphy. Morison,
Perowne, Jamieson, Cook, Stanley, Jowett,
Conybeare, Howson, Lewin, Elliott, Ka-
lisch, Ginsburg, 728-732.
6. American Exegetes : —
Stuart, Robinson, Alexander, Norton, Hodge,
Turner, Bush, Barnes, Jacobus, Owen,
Whedon, Cowles, Conant, Strong, Gardi¬
ner, Shedd, 733-735.
7. New Testament Textual Criticism : —
Knapp, Schulz, Scholz, Lachinann, Tischen-
dorf, Tregelles, Westcottand Hort, 735, 736,
8. The Revised English Version, 737.
9. Present Condition and Demands of Bib¬
lical Interpretation^ 737, 738.
1. Bibliography of Hermeneutics . ^39
2. Index of Scripture Texts . . 753
30 General Index . 770
PART FIRST
INTRODUCTION TO BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
It were indeed meet for us not at all to require the aid of the written Word,
hat to exhibit a life so pure that the grace of the Spirit should be instead of books
to our souls , and that as these are inscribed with ink , even so should our hearts
be with the Spirit. I$ut, since we have utterly put away from us this grace,
come, let us at any rate embrace the second-best course. For if it be a blame to
stand in need of vjritten words, and not to have brought down on ourselves the
grace of the Spirit, consider how heavy the charge of not choosing to profit even
after this assistance, but rather treating what is written vjith neglect, as if it
were cast forth without purpose, and at random, and so bringing down upon
ourselves our punishment vjith increase. ut that no such effect may ensue,
let us give strict heed unto the things that are written ; and let us learn how
the Old Law was given on the one hand, and how , on the other, the flew
Covenant. — Chrysostom.
INTRODUCTION
TO
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
CHAPTER I.
PRELIMINARY.
Hermeneutics is the science of interpretation. The word is usu¬
ally applied to the explanation of written documents, and may
therefore be more specifically defined as the science of Hermeneutics
interpreting an authors language.1 This science as- defined,
sumes that there are divers modes of thought and ambiguities of
expression among men, and, accordingly, it aims to remove the
supposable differences between a writer and his readers, so that the
meaning of the one may be truly and accurately apprehended by
the others.
It is common to distinguish between General and Special Her¬
meneutics. General Hermeneutics is devoted to the General and
general principles which are applicable to the interpre- special Her-
tation of all languages and writing. It may appropri- meneutlcs*
ately take cognizance of the logical operations of the human mind,
and the philosophy of human speech. Special Hermeneutics is de¬
voted rather to the explanation of particular books and classes of
writings. Thus, historical, poetical, philosophical, and prophetical
writings differ from each other in numerous particulars, and each
class> requires for its proper exposition the application of principles
and methods adapted to its own peculiar character and style.
Special Hermeneutics, according to Cellerier, is a science practical
and almost empirical, and searches after rules and solutions ; while
General Hermeneutics is methodical and philosophical, and searches
for principles and methods.2
1 The word hermeneutics is of Greek origin, from kpfirjvevt), to interpret , to ex¬
plain ; thence the adjective r/ tpprjvevTtKTj (sc. texvt]\ that is, the hermeneutical art ,
and thence our word hermeneutics , the science or art of interpretation. Closely kin¬
dred is also the name ‘E \pprjc, Hermes, or Mercury, who, bearing a golden rod of magic
power, figures in Grecian mythology as the messenger of the gods, the tutelary deity
of speech, of writing, of arts and sciences, and of all skill and accomplishments.
2 Manuel d’Hermeneutique Bibliaue, p. 5. Geneva, 1852.
2
18
INTRODUCTION TO
Biblical or Sacred Hermeneutics is the science of interpreting
the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.
credCalHerme- Inasmuch as these two Testaments differ* in form, lam
neutics- guage, and historical conditions, many writers have
deemed it preferable to treat the hermeneutics of each T estament
separately. And as the New Testament is the later and fuller ie\-
elation, its interpretation has received the fuller and more frequent
attention.1 But it may be questioned whether such a separate
treatment of the Old and New Testaments is the better course. It
is of the first importance to observe that, from a Christ*
Test. Herme- ian point of view, the Old Testament cannot be iuily
Hof ‘be apprehended without the help of the New. The mys-
ated. tery of Christ, which in other generations was not made
known unto men, was revealed unto the apostles and prophets of
the New Testament (Eph. iii, 5), and that revelation sheds a flood
of light upon numerous portions of the Hebrew Scriptures. On the
other hand, it is equally true that a scientific interpretation of the
New Testament is impossible without a thorough knowledge of the
older Scriptures. The very language of the New Testament, though
belonging to another family of human tongues, is notably Hebraic.
The style, diction, and spirit of many parts of the Creek Testament
cannot be properly appreciated without acquaintance with the style
and spirit of the Hebrew prophets. The Old Testament also abounds
in testimony of the Christ (Luke xxiv, 27, 44; John v, 39 ; Acts
x, 43), the illustration and fulfillment of which can be seen only in
the light of the Christian revelation. In short, the whole Bible is
a divinely constructed unity, and there is danger that, in studying
one part to the comparative neglect of the other, we may fall into
one-sided and erroneous methods of exposition. The Holy Scrip-
1 Among the more important modern works on the hermeneutics of the New Testa¬
ment are: Ernesti, Institutio Interpretis Novi Testamenti (Lips., 1 701), translated into
English by M. Stuart (Andover, 1827), and Terrot (Edin., 1843); Klausen, Ilerme-
neutik des neuen Testamcntes (Lpz., 1841); Wilke, Die Hermeneutik des neuen Tes-
lamentes systematisch dargestellt (Lpz., 1843); Doedes, Manual of Hermeneutics for
the Writings of the New Testament, translated from the Dutch by Stegmann (Edin.,
1867); Fairbairn, Hermeneutical Manual of the New Testament (Phila., 1859); Im-
mer, Hermeneutics of the New Testament, translated from the German by A. II. New¬
man (Andover, 1877). The principal treatises on Old Testament hermeneutics are:
Meyer, Versuch einer Hermeneutik des alten Testaments (1799); Pareau, Institutic
Interpretis Yeteris Testamenti (1822), translated by Forbes for the Edinburgh Biblical
Cabinet. The hermeneutics of both Testaments is treated by Seiler, Biblical Her¬
meneutics, or the Art of Scripture Interpretation, translated from the German by
Wright (Lond., 1835); Davidson, Sacred Hermeneutics (Edin., 1843), Cellerier’s Man¬
ual, mentioned above, recently translated into English by Elliott and Harsha (N. Y.,
1881), and Lange, Grundrissder biblischen Hermeneutik (Heidelb., 1878).
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
19
tures should be studied as a whole, for their several parts were giv¬
en in manifold portions and modes (7roAngepo)£ teal Tro/ivTpoTrcjg, Heb.
i, 1), and, taken all together, they constitute a remarkably self -in¬
terpreting volume.
Biblical Hermeneutics, having a specific field of its own, should
be carefully distinguished from other branches of theo- Distinguished
logical science with which it is often and quite naturally ttoTcrWcism
associated. It is to be distinguished from Biblical In- and Exegesis,
troduction, Textual Criticism, and Exegesis. Biblical Introduction,
or Isagogics, is devoted to the historico-critical examination of the
different books of the Bible. It inquires after their age, author¬
ship, genuineness, and canonical authority, tracing at the same time
their origin, preservation, and integrity, and exhibiting their con¬
tents, relative rank, and general character and value. The scien¬
tific treatment of these several subjects is often called the “Higher
Criticism.” Textual Criticism has for its special object Textual criti-
the ascertaining of the exact words of the original texts cism*
of the sacred books. Its method of procedure is to collate and
compare ancient manuscripts, ancient versions, and ancient scripture
quotations, and, by careful and discriminating judgment, sift con¬
flicting testimony, weigh the evidences of all kinds, and thus en¬
deavour to determine the true reading of every doubtful text.
This science is often called the “Lower Criticism.” Where such
criticism ends, Hermeneutics properly begins, and aims to establish
the principles, methods, and rules which are needful to unfold the
sense of what is written. Its object is to elucidate whatever may
be obscure or ill-defined, so that every reader may be able, by an
intelligent process, to obtain the exact ideas intended by the author.
Exegesis is the application of these principles and laws, Exegesis and
the actual bringing out into formal statement, and by Exposition,
other tlrms, the meaning of the author’s words. Exegesis is re¬
lated to hermeneutics as preaching is to homiletics, or, in general,
as practice is to theory. Exposition is another word often used
synonymously with exegesis, and has essentially the same significa¬
tion ; and yet, perhaps, in common usage, exposition denotes a more
extended development and illustration of the sense, dealing more
largely with other scriptures by comparison and contrast. We
observe, accordingly, that the writer on Biblical Introduction ex¬
amines the historical foundations and canonical authority of the
books of Scripture. The textual critic detects interpolations, emends
false readings, and aims to give us the very words which the sacred
writers used. The ezegete takes up these words, and by means of
the principles of hermeneutics, defines their meaning, elucidates the
20
INTRODUCTION TO
scope and plan of each writer, and brings forth the grammatico-
historical sense of what each book contains. The expositor builds
upon the labours both of critics and exegetes, and sets forth in fuller
form, and by ample illustration, the ideas, doctrines, and moral
lessons of the Scripture.1
But while we are careful to distinguish hermeneutics from these
kindred branches of exegetical theology, we should not fail to note
that a science of interpretation must essentially depend on exegesis
for the maintenance and illustration of its principles and rules. As
the full grammar of a language establishes its principles by sufficient
examples and by formal praxis, so a science of hermeneutics must
needs verify and illustrate its principles by examples of their prac¬
tical application. Its province is not merely to define principles
and methods, but also to exemplify and illustrate them. Herme-
_ .. neutics, therefore, is both a science and an art. As a
Hermeneutics , 7 /
both a science science, it enunciates principles, investigates the laws
and an Art. o£ thought an(j iangUage? and classifies its facts and
results. As an art, it teaches what application these principles
should have, and establishes their soundness by showing their prac¬
tical value in the elucidation of the more difficult scriptures. The
hermeneutical art thus cultivates and establishes a valid exegetical
procedure.
The necessity of a science of interpretation is apparent from the
Necessity of diversities of mind and culture among men. Personal
Hermeneutics, intercourse between individuals of the same nation and
language is often difficult and embarrassing by reason of their dif¬
ferent styles of thought and expression. Even the Apostle Peter
found in Paul’s epistles things which were difficult to understand
(i dvovorjra , 2 Pet. iii, 16). The man of broad and liberal culture
lives and moves in a different world from the unlettered peasant,
so much so that sometimes the ordinary conversation of tlie one is
scarcely intelligible to the other. Different schools of metaphysics
and opposing systems of theology have often led their several ad¬
vocates into strange misunderstandings. The speculative philoso¬
pher, who ponders long on abstract themes, and by deep study
1 Doedes thus discriminates between explaining and interpreting : “ To explain,
properly signifies the unfolding of what is contained in the words, and to interpret,
the making clear of what is not clear by casting light on that which is obscure. Very
often one interprets by means of explaining, namely, when, by unfolding the sense of
the words, light is reflected on what is said or written ; but it cannot be said that one
explains by interpreting. While explaining generally is interpreting, interpreting,
properly speaking, is not explaining. But we do not usually observe this distinction
in making use of these terms, and may without harm use them promiscuously.”
Manual of Hermeneutics, p. 4.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
21
constructs a doctrine or system clear to his own mind, may find it
difficult to set forth his views to others so as to prevent all miscon¬
ception. His whole subject matter lies beyond the range of com¬
mon thought. The hearers or readers, in such a case, must, like
the philosopher himself, dwell long upon the subject. They must
have terms defined, and ideas illustrated, until, step by step, they
come to imbibe the genius and spirit of the new philosophy. But
especially great and manifold are the difficulties of understanding
the writings of those who differ from us in language and national¬
ity. The learned themselves become divided in their essays to
decipher and interpret the records of the past. Volumes and li¬
braries have been written to elucidate the obscurities of the Greek
and Roman classics. The foremost scholars and linguists of the pres- .
ent generation are busied in the study and exposition of the sacred
books of the Chinese, the Hindus, the Parsees, and the Egyptians,
and, ‘after all their learned labours, they disagree in the translation
and solution of many a passage. How much more might we ex¬
pect great differences of opinion in the interpretation of a book
like the Bible, composed at sundry times and in many parts and
modes, and ranging through many departments of literature !
What obstacles might reasonably be expected in the interpretation
of a record of divine revelation, in which heavenly thoughts, un¬
known to men before, were made to express themselves in the im¬
perfect formulas of human speech! The most contradictory rules
of interpretation have been propounded, and expositions have been
made to suit the peculiar tastes and prejudices of writers or to main¬
tain preconceived opinions, until all scientific method has been set
at nought, and each interpreter became a law unto himself. Hence
the necessity of well-defined and self-consistent principles of Script¬
ure interpretation. Only as exegetes come to adopt common prin¬
ciples and methods of procedure, will the interpretation of the
Bible attain the dignity and certainty of an established science.
The rank and importance of Biblical Hermeneutics among the
various studies embraced in Theological Encyclopedia Rank and inl¬
and Methodology is apparent from the fundamental re-
lation which it sustains to them all. Eor the Scripture jn Theological
revelation is itself essentially the centre and substance Sciencc-
of all theological science. It contains the clearest and fullest exhi¬
bition of the person and character of God, and of the spiritual needs
and possibilities of man. A sound and trustworthy interpretation of
the scripture records, therefore, is the root and basis of all revealed
theology. Without it Systematic Theology, or Dogmatics, could
not be legitimately constructed, and would, in fact, be essentially
22
INTRODUCTION TO
impossible. For the doctrines of revelation can only be learned
from a correct understanding of the oracles of God. Historical
Theology, also, tracing as it does the thought and life of the Church,
must needs take cognizance of the principles and methods of script¬
ure interpretation which have so largely controlled in the develop¬
ment of that thought and life. The creeds of Christendom assume
to rest upon the teachings of the inspired Scriptures. Apologetics,
polemics, ethics, and all that is embraced in Practical Theology, are
ever making appeal to the authoritative records of the Christian
faith. The great work of the Christian ministry is to preach the
word ; and that most important labour cannot be effectually done
without a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures and skill in the
interpretation and application of the same. Personal piety and
practical godliness are nourished by the study of this written word.
The psalmist sings (Psa. cxix, 105, 111) :
•
A lamp to my foot is thy word,
And a light to my pathway.
I have taken possession of thy testimonies forever,
For the joy of my heart are they.1
The Apostle Paul admonished Timothy that the Holy Scriptures
were able to make him wise unto salvation through faith in Jesus
Christ (2 Tim. iii, 15). And Jesus himself, interceding for his own
chosen followers, prayed, “Sanctify them in the truth ; thy word is
truth” (John xvii, 17). Accordingly, the Lord’s ambassador must
not adulterate (2 Cor. ii, 17), but rightly divide, the word of the
truth (2 Tim. ii, 15). For if ever the divinely appointed ministry
of reconciliation accomplish the perfecting of the saints, and the
building up of the body of Christ, so as to bring all to the attain¬
ment of the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of
God (Eph. iv, 12, 13), it must be done by a correct interpreta¬
tion and efficient use of the word of God. The interpretation
and application of that word must rest upon a sound and self-evi¬
dencing science of hermeneutics.
1 All scripture quotations in the present work have been made by translating direct¬
ly from the Hebrew, Chaldee, and Greek originals. To have followed the Authorized
Version would have necessitated a large amount of circumlocution. In many instances
the citation of a text is designed to illustrate a process as well as a principle of her¬
meneutics. It is often desirable to bring out, either incidentally or prominently,
some noticeable emphasis, and this can be done best by giving the exact order of the
words of the original. The observance of such order in translation may sometimes
violate the usage and idiom of the best English, but, in many cases, it yields the
best possible translation.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
23
CHAPTER II.
THE BIBLE AND OTHER SACRED BOOKS.
It is no inconsiderable preparation for the hermeneutical study of
the Bible to be able to appreciate its rank and value as compared
with other sacred books. During the last half century other religiou3
the learned research and diligent labour of scholars have literatures aval-
made accessible to us whole literatures of nations that Son^orTerm^
were comparatively unknown before. It is discovered neutical study,
that the ancient Egyptians, the Persians, the Hindus, the Chinese,
and other nations, have had their sacred writings, some of which
claim an antiquity greater than the books of Moses. There are not
wanting, in Christian lands, men disposed to argue that these sacred
books of the nations possess a value as great as the scriptures of the
Christian faith, and are entitled to the same veneration. Such
claims are not to be ignored or treated with contempt. There have
been, doubtless, savage islanders who imagined that the sun rose
and set for their sole benefit, and who never dreamed that the sound¬
ing waters about their island home were at the same time washing
beautiful corals and precious pearls on other shores. Among civil¬
ized peoples, also, there are those who have no appreciation of lands,
nations, literatures, and religions which differ from their own. This,
however, is a narrowness unworthy of the Christian scholar. The
truly catholic Christian will not refuse to acknowledge the manifest
excellences of races or religions that differ from his own. He will
be governed in his judgments by the precept of the apostle (Phil,
iv, 8) : “ Whatever things are true, whatever things are worthy of
honour ( oefiva ), whatever things are just, whatever things are pure,
whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if
there be any virtue and if there be any praise, think upon (Aoyt^eads,
exercise reason upon) these things.” The study ana comparison of
other scriptures will serve, among other things, to show how pre¬
eminently the Christian’s Bible is adapted to the spiritual nature
and religious culture of all mankind.1
1 “ This volume,” says Professor Phelps, “ has never yet numbered among its re¬
ligious believers a fourth part of the human race, yet it has swayed a greater amount
of mind than any other volume the world has known. It has the singular faculty of
attracting to itself the thinkers of the world, either as friends or as foes, always and
everywhere.” Men and Books, p. 239. New York, 1882.
24
INTRODUCTION TO
Literature of the Christian Canon.
The scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the gradual
accretion of a literature that covers about sixteen centuries. The
outline of Bib- fiifferent parts were contributed at different times, and
licai Literature by many different hands. According to the ordei of
Se^CMsSS books in the Christian Canon, we have, first, the five
canon. Books of Moses, which embody the Ten Commandments,
with their various accessory statutes, moral, civil, and ceremonial,
all set in a historical background of singular simplicity and gian-
deur. Then follow twelve Historical Books, recording the history
of the Israelitish nation from the death of Moses to the restoration
from Babylonian exile, and covering a period of a thousand years.
Next follow five Poetical Books — a drama, a psalter, two books of
proverbial philosophy, and a song of love ; and after these are sev¬
enteen Prophetical Books, among which are some of the most mag¬
nificent monuments of all literature. In the New Testament we
have, first, the four Gospels, which record the life and words of
Jesus Christ; then the Acts of the Apostles, a history of the origin
of the Christian Church; then the thirteen Epistles of Paul, fol¬
lowed by the Epistlo to the Hebrews, and the seven General Epis¬
tles; and, finally, the Apocalypse of John. Here, at a rapid glance,
we see an ancient library of history, law, theology, philosophy,
poetry, prophecy, epistles, and biography. Most of these books
still bear their author’s names, some of whom we find to have been
kings, some prophets, some shepherds, some fishermen. One was a
taxgatherer, another a tentmaker, another a physician, but all were
deeply versed in sacred things. There could have been no collusion
among them, for they lived and wrote in different ages, centuries
apart, and their places of residence were far separate, as Arabia,
Palestine, Babylon, Persia, Asia Minor, Greece, and Rome.1 The
antiquities and varying civilizations of these different nations and
countries are imaged in these sacred books, and, where the name of
an author is not known, it is not difficult to ascertain approximately,
from his statements or allusions, the time and circumstances of his
writing. The nation with whom these books originated, and the
lands that nation occupied first and last, are so well known, and sc
accurately identified, as to give a living freshness and reality to
1 Geike says : “ Scripture proves throughout to be only so many notes in a divine har¬
mony which culminates in the angel song over Bethlehem. What less than Divine in¬
spiration could have evolved such unity of purpose and spirit in the long series of sacred
writers, no one of whom could possibly be conscious of the part he was being made to
take in the development of God’s ways to our race ?” Hours with the Bible, vol. i, p. 5.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
25
these records; and the rich and varied contents of the several hooks
are such as to make them of priceless value to all men and all ages.
“I am of opinion,” wrote Sir William Jones — a most competent
judge on such a subject — “that this volume, independently of its
divine origin, contains more true sublimity, more exquisite beauty,
more pure morality, more important history, and finer strains of
poetry and eloquence, than can be collected from all other hooks,
in whatever age or language they may have been written.” 1 Let
us now compare and contrast these scriptures with the sacred hooks
of other nations.
The Avesta.
No body of sacred literature except the Christian Canon can he
of much greater interest to the student of history than the scrip¬
tures of the Parsees, which are commonly called the . .. ..
Zend-Avesta. They contain the traditions and cere- general char-
monies of the old Iranian faith, the religion of Zoro- acter*
aster, or (more properly) Zarathustra. They have sadly suffered
by time and the revolutions of empire, and come to us greatly
mutilated and corrupted, but since they were first brought to the
knowledge of the western world by the enthusiastic Frenchman,
Anquetil-Duperron,2 whose adventures in the East read like a ro¬
mance from the Arabian Nights, the studies of European scholars
have put us in possession of their general scope and subject matter.3
They consist of four distinct sections, the Yasna, the Vispered, the
Yendidad, and a sort of separate hagiographa, commonly called
Khordah-Avesta.
The main principles of the Avesta religion are thus summed up
by Darmesteter : “ The world, such as it is now, is two- Doctrinal sys_
fold, being the work of two hostile beings, Ahura- tem of the
Mazda, the good principle, and Angra-Mainyu, the evil vea a"
principle ; all that is good in the world comes from the former, all
1 Written on a blank leaf of his Bible.
2 In his work entitled, Zend-Avesta, ouvrage de Zoroastre, contenant les Idees Theo-
logiques, Physiques et Morales de ce Legislateur, 3 vols., Par., 1771.
3 Especially deserving of mention are Eugene Burnouf, Commentaire sur le Yacna,
3 vols., Par., 1833; Westergaard, Zendavesta, Copenh., 1852-54; Spiegel, who has
published the original text, with a full critical apparatus, and also a German transla¬
tion, with a commentary on both the text and translation, Lpz., 1853-1868; Haug,
Essays on the Sacred Language, Writings, and Religion of the Parsees, Bombay, 1862 ;
also Die Gathas des Zarathustra, Lpz., 1858; Windischmann, Zoroastrische Studien,
Berl., 1863. An English version of the Avesta from Spiegel’s German version, by
A. H. Bleek, was published in London, in 1864, and a better one from the original
text, by J. Darmesteter, (Part I, The Yendidad, Oxf., 1880), as Yol. IY, of The
Sacred Books of the East, edited by Max Muller.
26
INTRODUCTION TO
The Yasna.
that is bad in it comes from the latter. The history of the world
is the history of their conflict, how Angra-Mainyu invaded the
world of Ahura-Mazda and marred it, and how he shall be expelled
from it at last. Man is active in the conflict, his duty in it being
laid before him in the law revealed by Ahura-Mazda to Zarathustra.
When the appointed time is come, a son of the lawgiver, still un¬
born, named Saoshyant, will appear, Angra-Mainyu and ITell will be
destroyed, men will rise from the dead, and everlasting happiness
will reign over the world.”1
The oldest portion of the Avesta is called the Yasna, which,
along with the Yispered, constitutes the Parsee Lit¬
urgy, and consists of praises of Ahura-Mazda, and all
the lords of purity, and of invocations for them to be present at
the ceremonial worship. Many of these prayers contain little more
than the names and attributes of the several objects or patrons of
the Zoroastrian worship, and the perusal of them soon becomes
tedious. The following constitutes the whole of the twelfth
chapter, and is one of the finest passages, and a favourite :
I praise the well-thought, well-spoken, well-performed thoughts, words,
and works. I lay hold on all good thoughts, words, and works. I aban¬
don all evil thoughts, words, and works. I bring to you, O Amesha-
Spentas,2 praise and adoration, with thoughts, words, and works, with
heavenly mind, the vital strength of my own body.
The following, from the beginning of the thirteenth chapter, is
another favourite :
I drive away the dsevas (demons), I profess myself a Zarathustrian, an
expeller of dsevas, a follower of Ahura, a hymn-singer of the Amesha-
Spentas, a praiser of the Amesha-Spentas. To Ahura-Mazda, the Good,
endued with good wisdom, I offer all good. To the Pure, Rich, Majestic;
whatever are the best goods to him, to whom the cow, to whom purity
belongs; from whom arises the light, the brightness which is inseparable
from the lights. Spenta-Armaiti, the good, choose I ; may she belong to
me! By my praise will I save the cattle from theft and robbery.
The latter part of the Yasna contains the religious hymns known
as the Gathas. They are believed to be the oldest por¬
tion of the Avesta, and are written in a more ancient
dialect. But a considerable part of them is scarcely intelligible, all
the learning and labour of scholars having thus far failed to clear up
1 Darmesteter, Translation of the Avesta, Introduction, p. lvi.
The Amesha-Spentas, six in number, were at first mere personifications of virtues
and moral or liturgical powers; but as Ahura-Mazda, their lord and father, ruled over
the whole of the world, they took by and by each a part of the world under their
care. Comp. Darmesteter, p. lxxi.
The Gathas.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
27
the difficulties of the ancient text. The general drift of thought,
however, is apparent. Praises are continually addressed to the holy
powers, especially to the Holy Spirit Aliura-Mazda (Ormuzd), the
Creator, the Rejoicer, the Pure, the Fair, the Heavenly, the Ruler
over all, the Most Profitable, the Friend for both worlds. Many a
noble sentiment is uttered in these ancient hymns, but, at the same
time, a much larger amount of frivolous matter.
The Yispered is but a liturgical addition to the Yasna, and of sim¬
ilar character. It contains twenty-seven chapters, of The vispered.
which the following, from the eighth chapter, is a specimen:
The right-spoken words praise we.
The holy Sraoslia praise we.
The good purity praise we.
Nairo-Sanha praise we.
The victorious peaces praise we.
The undaunted, who do not come to shame, praise we.
The Fravashis (souls) of the pure praise we.
The bridge Chinvat1 praise we.
The dwelling of Aliura-Mazda praise we.
The best place of the pure praise we,
The shining, wholly brilliant.
The best-arriving at Paradise praise we.
The Yendidad, consisting of twenty-two chapters, or fargards,
is of a different character. It is a minute code of Zoro-
astrian laws, most of which, however, refer to matters The Vendldad-
of purification. The first fargard enumerates the countries which
were created by Ahura-Mazda, and afterward corrupted by the evil
principle, Angra-Mainyu, who is full of death and opposition to
the good. The second introduces us to Yima, the fair, who refused
to be the teacher, recorder, or bearer of the law, but became the
protector and overseer of the world. Chapter third enumerates
things which are most acceptable and most displeasing to the world ;
and chapter fourth describes breaches of contracts and other sins,
and prescribes the different degrees of punishment for each, declar¬
ing, among other things, that a man’s nearest relatives may become
involved in his punishment, even to a thousandfold. Chapters fifth
to twelfth treat uncleanness occasioned by contact with dead bod¬
ies, and the means of purification. Chapters thirteenth and four¬
teenth praise the dog, and heavy punishments are enjoined for those
who injure the animal so important and valuable to a pastoral peo¬
ple. Fargards fifteenth and sixteenth give laws for the treatment of
1 Over which the good are supposed to pass into Paradise.
28
INTRODUCTION TO
women, and condemn seduction and attempts to procure abortion.
Fargard seventeenth gives directions concerning paring the nails
and cutting the hair. The remaining five chapters contain numer¬
ous conversations between Ahura-Mazda and Zoroaster, and appear
to be fragmentary additions to the original Yendidad.
The rest of the Parsee scriptures are comprehended under what
The Khordah- is commonly called the Khordah-Avesta, that is, the
Avesta. small A vesta. This part contains the Yashts and Nya-
yis, prayers and praises addressed to the various deities of the
Zoroastrian faith ; also the Aferin and Afrigan, praises and thanks¬
givings ; the Sirozah, praises to the deities of the thirty days of the
month; the Gahs, prayers to the different subdivisions of the day;
and the Patets, or formularies of confession.
These praises and prayers of the small Avesta are intended for
the use of the people, as those of the Yasna and Yispered are prin¬
cipally for the priests. Taken altogether, these Parsee scriptures
are a prayer-book, or ritual, rather than a bible. But though they
are associated with the venerable name of Zoroaster, and tradition
has it that he composed two million verses, yet nothing in this vol¬
ume can with certainty be ascribed to him, and he himself is a dim
and mythical personage. In all these writings there is a vagueness
and uncertainty about subject matter, date, and authorship. Dar-
mesteter says : “ As the Parsees are the ruins of a people, so are.
their sacred books the ruins of a religion. There has been no other
great belief in the world that ever left such poor and meagre monu¬
ments of its past splendor.” 1
Assyrian Sacred Records.
The cuneiform inscriptions on the monuments of the Assyrian,
Uteraturtf6 in Babylonian’ and Persian empires have been found to
cuneiform in- embody a vast literature, embracing history, law sci-
scriptions. ence, poetry, and religion. To the interpretation of
these monumental records a number of eminent orientalists,2 chiefly
English and French, have been, within the last half century, devot¬
ing unwearied study, and many of the most interesting inscriptions
have been deciphered and translated into the languages of modern
Europe. At the date of the earliest monumental records, two dif¬
ferent races appear to have settled upon the plains of the Euphrates
and Tigris, one using a Semitic, the other a Scythian or Turanian
Translation of the Zend-Avesta ; Introduction, p. xii.
2 Among the most distinguished Assyriologists are Rawlinson, Hincks, Norris, George
omith, Talbot, Sayce, Botta, De Saulcy, Oppert, Lenormant, Menant, and Schrader.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
29
language. They are designated by the names Sumir and Akkad,
but what particular sections of the country each inhabited, or which
particular language each spoke, does not appear.1 They were,
probably, much intermixed, as many of their cities bear both Sem¬
itic and Scythian names. “ The Accadians,” says Sayce, “ were the
inventors of the cuneiform system of writing, and the earliest pop¬
ulation of Babylonia of whom we know. They spoke an aggluti¬
native language, allied to Finnic or Tartar, and had originally come
from the mountainous country to the southwest of the Caspian.
The name Accada signifies ‘ highlander,’ and the name of Accad is
met with in the tenth chapter of Genesis.” 2 The successive Assyr¬
ian, Babylonian, and Persian conquerors adopted the Accadian sys¬
tem of writing, and it became variously modified by each.
The inscriptions thus far deciphered are mostly fragmentary, and
the study of them has not yet been carried far enough . .. .
. •' J m o Inscriptions de-
to furnish a full account of all the tribes and languages ciphered most-
they represent. But enough has already been placed 1yfraf?mentary*
within the reach of English readers to show that those ancient peo¬
ples had an extensive sacred literature. Their prayers and hymns
and laws were graven on monumental tablets, often on the high
rocks, and they are worthy to be compared with the sacred books
of other lands and nations.3
The royal inscriptions on these monuments are noticeable for their
religious character. Though full of most pompous self Eeligious tone
assertion they abound with devout acknowledgments, of the royal in¬
showing that those ancient monarchs never hesitated to scnptlons*
confess their dependence on the powers above. Witness the fol¬
lowing inscription of Khammurabi, who ruled in Babylonia some
centuries before the time of Moses :
Khammurabi the exalted king, the king of Babylon, the king renowned
throughout the world; conqueror of the enemies of Maiduk; the king be¬
loved by his heart am I.
1 “ The Turanian people,” says George Smith, “ who appear to have been the origi-
nal inhabitants of the country, invented the cuneiform mode of writing ; all the earli¬
est inscriptions are in that language, but the proper names of most oi the kings and
principal persons are written in Semitic, in direct contrast to the body of the inscrip¬
tions. The Semites appear to have conquered the Turanians, although they had not
yet imposed their language on the country.” Records of the Past, vol. iii, p. 3..
2 Preface to his translation of a Tablet of Ancient Accadian Laws, Records of the
Past, vol. iii, p. 21.
3 A very convenient and valuable collection of these inscriptions, translated into
English by leading oriental scholars, is published by Bagster & Sons, of London, un¬
der the title of Records of the Past (12 volumes, 1875-1881). Every alternate volume
of the series contains translations from the Egyptian monuments.
30
INTRODUCTION TO
The favour of gocl and Bel the people of Sumir and Accad gave unto my
government. Their celestial weapons unto my hand they gave.
The canal Khammurabi, the joy of men, a stream of abundant waters,
for the people of Sumir and Accad, I excavated. Its banks, all of them, I
restored to newness; new supporting walls I heaped up; perennial waters
for the people of Sumir and Accad I provided.
The people of Sumir and Accad, all of them, in general assemblies I as¬
sembled. A review and inspection of them I ordained every year. In joy
and abundance I watched over them, and in peaceful dwellings I caused
them to dwell.
By the divine favour I am Khammurabi the exalted king, the worshipper
of the Supreme deity.
With the prosperous power which Marduk gave me I built a lofty cita¬
del, on a high mound of earth, whose summits rose up like mountains, on
the banks of Khammurabi river, the joy of men.
To that citadel I gave the name of the mother who bore me and the
father who begat me. In the holy name of Ri, the mother who bore me,
and of the father who begat me, during long ages may it last I x
Similar devout acknowledgments are found in nearly all the royal
annals. Sargori’s great inscription on the palace of Khorsabad
declares :
The gods Assur, Nebo, and Merodach have conferred on me the royalty
of the nations, and they have propagated the memory of my fortunate
name to the ends of the earth. . . . The great gods have made me happy
by the constancy of their affection, they have granted me the exercise of
my sovereignty over all kings.1 2
Other tablets contain a great variety of compositions. There are
specimens of myfh°l0gical stories, fables, proverbs, laws, contracts,
psalms and deeds of sale, lists of omens and charms, legends of
prajers. deities and spirits, and speculations in astrology. Not
the least interesting among these records are the old Accadian and
Assyrian hymns. Some of these remind us of the hymns of the
Rig- Veda. Some have the tone of penitential psalms. The fol¬
lowing is one of the best examples :
O my Lord! my sins are many, my trespasses are great;
And the wrath of the gods has plagued me with disease,
And with sickness and sorrow.
I fainted, but no one stretched forth his hand;
I groaned, but no one drew7 nigh ;
I cried aloud, but no one heard.
1 Translation by H. F. Talbot, Records of the Past, vol. i, pp. 7, 8.
2 Records of the Past, vol. ix, p. 3.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
31
O Lord ! do not abandon thy servant.
In the waters of the great storm seize his hand.
The sins which he has committed, turn thou to righteousness.1 2
The following prayer for a king is interesting both as an ex¬
ample of Assyrian sacred poetry, and as evidence of a belief in
immortality :
Length of days,
Long- lasting years,
A strong sword,
A long life,
Extended years of glory,
Pre-eminence among king's.
Grant ye to the king, my lord,
Who has given such gifts to his gods!
The bounds vast and wide
Of his empire and of His rule
May he enlarge and may he complete.
Holding over all kings supremacy,
And royalty and empire,
May he attain to gray hairs and old age ;
And after the life of these days,
In the feasts of the silver mountain,8
The heavenly courts,
The abode of blessedness,
And in the light of the Happy Fields,
May he dwell a life eternal, holy,
Iu the presence of the gods
Who inhabit Assyria.3
The following Chaldean account of the Creation is a translation,
by H. F. Talbot, of the first and fifth Creation Tablets, Chaldean ac-
which are preserved, though in a mutilated condition, tion^etcf Crea”
in the British Museum :
From the First Tablet.
When the upper region was not yet called heaven,
And the lower region was not yet called earth,
And the abyss of Hades had not yet opened its arms,
Then the chaos of waters gave birth to all of them,
And the waters were gathered into one place.
No men yet dwelt together; no animals yet wandered about;
1 Records of the Past, vol. iii, p. 136.
2 The Assyrian Olympus. The epithet silver was doubtless suggested by some
snowy inaccessible peak, the supposed dwelling-place of the gods.
3 Translated by Talbot, Records of the Past, vol. iii, pp. 133, 134.
32
INTRODUCTION TO
None of the gods had yet been born,
Their names were not spoken; their attributes were not known.
Then the eldest of the gods,
Lakh mu and Lakhamu were born,
And grew up. ... 1
Assur and Kissur were born next,
And lived through long periods.
Anu. ... 2
From the Fifth Tablet .
He constructed dwellings for the great gods.
He fixed up constellations, whose figures were like animals.
He made the year. Into four quarters he divided it.
Twelve months he established, with their constellations, three by
three.
And for days of the year he appointed festivals.
He made dwellings for the planets; for their rising and setting.
And that nothing should go amiss, and that the course of none should
be retarded,
He placed with them the dwellings of Bel and Hea.
He opened great gates on every side;
He made strong the portals, on the left hand and on the right.
In the centre he placed luminaries.
The moon he appointed to rule the night,
And to wander through the night, until the dawn of day.
Every month without fail he made holy assembly days.
In the beginning of the month, at the rising of the night,
It shot forth its horns to illuminate the heavens.
On the seventh day he appointed a holy day,
And to cease from all business he commanded.
Then arose the sun in the horizon of heaven in (glorj').3
The mention here made of the seventh day as a holy day is im¬
portant to the biblical theologian. “ It has been known for some
time,” says Talbot, “that the Babylonians observed the Sabbath
with considerable strictness. On that day the king was not allowed
to take a drive in his chariot; various meats were forbidden to be
eaten, and there were a number of other minute restrictions. But
it was not known that they believed the Sabbath to have been or¬
dained at the Creation. I have found, however, since this transla¬
tion of the fifth tablet was completed, that Mr. Sayce has recently
published a similar oninion.”
1 Lacunae. 2 The rest of this tablet is lost.
3 Records of the Past, vol. ix, pp. 117, 118. Compare the translation and comments
of George Smith, Chaldaean Account of Genesis. New York, 1876. New Edition,
revised, 1880.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS. 33
. The blowing Accadian poem is supposed to be an ancient tradi¬
tion of the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah. Mr.
Sayce, whose translation is here given, observes that genSsodom
“it seems merely a fragment of a legend, in which andGoraorr^.
the names of the cities were probably given, and an explanation
afforded of the mysterious personage, who, like Lot, appears to
have escaped destruction. It must not be forgotten that the cam¬
paign of Chedoi laomer and his allies was directed against Sodom
and the other cities of the plain, so that the existence of the legend
among the Accadians is not so surprising as might appear at first
sight.”
An overthrow from the midst of the deep there came.
The fated punishment from the midst of heaven descended.
A storm like a plummet the earth (overwhelmed).
To the four winds the destroying flood like fire did burn.
The inhabitants of the cities it had caused to be«tormented ; their bodies
it consumed.
In city and country it spread death, and the flames as they rose overthrew.
Freeman and slave were equal, and the high places it filled.
In heaven and earth like a thunder- storm it had rained; a prey it made.
A place of refuge the gods hastened to, and in a throng collected.
Its mighty (onset) they fled from, and like a garment it concealed (mankind).
They (feared), and death (overtook them).
(Their) feet and hands (it embraced).
Their body it consumed.
... 1 the city, its foundation, it defiled.
... Mn breath, his mouth he filled.
As for this man, a loud voice was raised; the mighty lightning flash de¬
scended.
During the day it flashed ; grievously (it fell).2
Similar to the above in general tone and character are the cune¬
iform accounts of the Deluge and the Tower of Babel. They are
especially valuable in showing how the traditions of most ancient
events were preserved among the scattered nations, and became
modified in the course of ages. Notably inferior are these poetic
legends to the calm and stately narratives of the book of Genesis,
but they are, nevertheless, to be greatly prized. Were Assyriolo-
gists to gather up, classify, and arrange in proper order the relig¬
ious records of ancient Assyria and Babylonia, it would be seen
that these hoary annals and hymns of departed nations furnish a
sacred literature second in interest and value to none of the bibles
of the Gentiles.
lacunae. 2 Records of the Past, vol. xi, pp. 115-118.
3
34
INTRODUCTION TO
The Veda.
The word Veda means knowledge, and is the Sanskrit eqnivalent
of the Greek olda, I knou >. It is often used to denote the entire
body of Hindu sacred literature, which, according to the Brahmans,
contains pre-eminently the knowledge which is important and wor-
fionerai char ^hy to known. But the Vedas proper exist chiefly
acter of the in the form of lyrical poetry, and consist of four dis¬
tinct collections known as the Rig- Veda, the Sama-
Veda, the Yajur-Veda, and the Atharva-Veda. These hymns are
called Mantras, as distinguished from the prose annotations and
disquisitions (Brahmanas), which were subsequently added to them.
They are written in a dialect much older than the classical San¬
skrit, and are allowed on all hands to be among the most ancient
and important monuments of literature extant in any nation or
language. The four collections differ much, however, in age and
value. The Rig- Veda is the oldest and most important, and con¬
sists of one thousand and twenty-eight hymns. Nearly half the
hymns are addressed to either Indra, the god of light, or Agni, the
god of fire. According to Professor Whitney, it “is doubtless a
historical collection, prompted by a desire to treasure up complete,
and preserve from further corruption, those ancient and inspired
songs which the Indian nation had brought with them, as their
most precious possession, from the earlier seats of the race.” 1 The
Sama-Veda is a liturgical collection, consisting largely of hymns
from the Rig- Veda, but arranged for ritual purposes. The Yajur-
Veda is of a similar character, and consists of various formulas
in prose and verse arranged for use at sacrificial services. The
Atharva-V eda is the work of a later period, and never attained in
India a rank equal to that of the other Vedas. In fact, says Max
Max Muller’s “ f°r tracing the earliest growth of religious
views of the ideas in India, the only important, the only real Veda,
is the Rig-Veda. The other so-called Vedas, which
deserve the name of Veda no more than the Talmud deserves the
name of Bible, contain chiefly extracts from the Rig-Veda, together
with sacrificial formulas, charms, and incantations, many of them,
no doubt, extremely curious, but never likely to interest any one
except the Sanskrit scholar by profession.” 2
The same distinguished scholar elsewhere observes: “The Veda
has a twofold interest ; it belongs to the history of the world and
1 Oriental and Linguistic Studies, p. 13. New York, 1873.
2 Chips from a German Workshop, vol. i, p. 8.
35
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
to the history of India. In the history of the world the Yeda fills
a gap which no literary work in any other language could fill.
It carries us hack to times of which we have no records anywhere,
and gives us the very words of a generation of men of whom other¬
wise we could form but the vaguest estimate by means of conjec¬
tures and inferences. As long as man continues to take an interest
m the history of his race, and as long as we collect in libraries and
museums the relics of former ages, the first place in that long row
of books which contains the records of the Aryan branch of man¬
kind will belong forever to the Rig- Veda.” 1
Confining our observations, therefore, to the Rig- Yeda, we note
that it is in substance a vast book of psalms. Its one
thousand and twenty-eight lyrics (suktas), of various a rosfifook o?
length, are divided into ten books (mandalcis, circles), Psalms*
and together constitute a work about eight times larger than t^he
one hundred and fifty Psalms of the Old Testament. The first
book is composed of one hundred and ninety-one hymns, which are
ascribed to some fifteen different authors (rishis). The second
book contains forty-three hymns, all of which are attributed to
Gritsamada and his family. The next five books are also ascribed
each to a single author or his family, and vary in the number ■ of
their hymns from sixty-two to one hundred and four. The eighth
book has ninety-two hymns, attributed to a great num- Variety of au_
ber of different authors, a majority of whom are of the thors-
race of Kanva. The ninth book is also ascribed to various authors,
and has one hundred and fourteen hymns, all of which are addressed
to Soma as a god. “The name Soma,” says Grassmann, “is derived
from a root, su , which originally meant ‘to beget,’ ‘to produce,’
but in the Rig- Yeda is applied altogether to the extracting and
pressing of the plant used for the preparation of soma, and the
soma itself therefore meant originally the juice obtained by this
procedure.”2 The tenth book, like the first, contains one hundred
and ninety-one hymns ; but they wear a different style, breathe a
different spirit, and appear to belong to a much later period. “ We
find,” says Grassmann, “ in this, as in the first book, songs belong¬
ing to the springtime of vedic poesy, but also songs belonging to a
time not very remote, as the time of the most recent period of vedic
lyrics, such as presents itself to us in the Atliarva-Yeda.” 3
1 History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature. Second Edition, p. 63. Lond., 1860.
2 Grassraann’s Rig- Yeda. Metrical Version in German, with Critical and Explan¬
atory Annotations (2 vols. Lpz., 1876, 1877). Preface to Ninth Book, vol. ii
p. 183.
3 Rig-Veda. Preface to Tenth Book, vol. ii, p. 288.
86
INTRODUCTION TO
Qur limits will allow us to present only a few specimens, but
specimens of these will suffice to show the general character and
Vedic Hymns. styie 0f the best Rig-Veda hymns. The following is
Max Muller’s translation of the fifty-third hymn of the first book,
and is addressed to Indra :
1. Keep silence well! we offer praises to the great Indra in the house of
the sacrificer. Does he find treasure for those who are like sleepers?
Mean praise is not valued among the munificent.
2. Thou art the giver of horses, Indra, thou art the giver of cows, the
giver of corn, the strong lord of wealth; the old guide of man, disappoint¬
ing no desires, a friend to friends: — to him we address this song.
8. O powerful Indra, achiever of many works, most brilliant god— all
this wealth around here is known to be thine alone : take from it, conqueror,
bring it hither ! do not stint the desire of the worshipper who longs for
thee !
4. On these days thou art gracious, and on these nights, keeping off the
enemy from our cows and from our stud. Tearing the fiend night after
night with the help of Indra, let us rejoice in food, freed from haters.
5. Let us rejoice, Indra, in treasure and food, in wealth of manifold de¬
light and splendor. Let us rejoice in the blessing of the gods, which gives
us the strength of offspring, gives us cows first and horses.
6. These draughts inspired thee, O lord of the brave ! these were vigour,
these libations, in battles, when for the sake of the poet, the sacrificer,
thou struckest down irresistibly ten thousands of enemies.
7. From battle'to battle thou advancest bravely, from town to town thou
destroyest all this with might, when thou, Indra, with Nami as thy friend,
struckest down from afar the deceiver Namuki.
8. Thou hast slain Karnaga and Parnaya with the brightest spear of
Atithigva. Without a helper thou didst demolish the hundred cities of
Vangrida, which were besieged by Rigisvan.
9. Thou hast felled down wdtli the chariot-wheel these twenty kings of
men, who had attacked the friendless Susravas, and gloriously the sixty
thousand and ninety-nine forts.
10. Thou, Indra, hast succoured Susravas with thy succours, Turvayana
with thy protections. Thou hast made Kutsa, Atithigva, and Ayu subject
to this mighty youthful king.
11. We who in future, protected by the gods, wish to be thy most
blessed friends, wre shall praise thee, blessed by thee with offspring, and
enjoying henceforth a longer life.1
The following is a translation, by W. D. Whitney, of the eight¬
eenth hymn of the tenth book. It furnishes a vivid portraiture of
the proceedings of an ancient Hindu burial, and holds even at the
present day an important place among the funeral ceremonies of the
Hindus. The officiating priest thus speaks :
1 Chips from a German Workshop, vol. i, pp. 30-33.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS. 31
1. Go forth, 0 Death, upon a distant pathway,
one that’s thine own, not that the gods do travel;
I speak to thee who eyes and ears possessest;
harm not our children, harm thou not our heroes.
2. Ye who death’s foot have clogged1 2 ere ye came hither,
your life and vigour longer yet retaining,
Sating yourselves with progeny and riches,
clean be ye now, and purified, ye offerers!
3. These have come here, not of the dead, but living; .
our worship of the gods hath been propitious;
We’ve onward gone to dancing and to laughter,
our life and vigour longer yet retaining.3
4. This fix I as protection for the living;3
may none of them depart on that same errand ;
Long may they live, a hundred numerous autumns,
’twixt death and them a mountain interposing.
5. As day succeeds to day in endless series,
as seasons happily move on with seasons,
As each that passes lacks not its successor,
so do thou make their lives move on, Creator!
6. Ascend to life, old age your portion making,
each after each, advancing in due order;4
May Twashter, skilful fashioner, propitious,
cause that you here enjoy a long existence.
7. These women here, not widows, blessed with husbands,
may deck themselves with ointment and with perfume;
Unstained by tears, adorned, untouched with sorrow,
the wives may first ascend unto the altar.
8. Go up unto the world of life, O woman!
thou liest by one whose soul is fled ; come hither!
To him who grasps thy hand,5 6 a second husband,
thou art as wife to spouse become related.
1 Allusion to the custom of attaching a clog to the foot of the corpse, as if thereby
to secure the attendants at the burial from harm.
2 The friends of the deceased seem to have no idea of soon sharing his fate ; they
desire to banish the thought of death.
3 The officiating priest drew a circle and set a stone between it and the grave, to
symbolize the barrier which he would fain establish between the living and the dead.
4 Addressed to the attendants, who hereupon left their places about the bier, and
went up into the circle marked off for the living. First the men went up, then the
wives, and finally the widow.
6 The person who led the widow away was usually a brother-in-law, or a foster child.
88
INTRODUCTION TO
9. The bow from out the dead man's hand now taking,1
that ours may be the glory, honour, prowess —
Mayest thou there, we here, rich in retainers,
vanquish our foes and them that plot against us.
10. Approach thou now the lap of earth, thy mother,
the wide-extending earth, the ever-kindly;
A maiden soft as wool to him who comes with gilts,
she shall protect thee from destruction’s bosom.
11. Open thyself, O earth, and press not heavily ;
be easy of access and ot approach to him ;
As mother with her robe her child,
so do thou cover him, O earth 1
12. May earth maintain herself thus opened wide for him;
a thousand props shall give support about him;
And may those mansions ever drip with fatness;
may they be there for evermore liis refuge.
13. Forth from about thee thus I build away the ground;
as I lay down this clod may I receive no harm;
This pillar may the Fathers here maintain for thee ;
may Yama there provide for thee a dwelling.
We add a single specimen more, a metrical version of the one
hundred and twenty-ninth hymn of the tenth book, which is espe¬
cially interesting as being full of profound speculation. “In judg¬
ing it,” says Max Muller, “we should bear in mind that it was not
written by a gnostic or by a pantheistic philosopher, but by a poet
who felt all these doubts and problems as his own, without any
wish to convince or to startle, only uttering what had been weigh¬
ing on his mind, just as later poets would sing the doubts and sor¬
rows of their heart.”
Nor Anght nor Naught existed; yon bright sky
Was not, nor heaven’s broad woof outstretched above.
What covered all? what sheltered? what concealed?
Was it the water’s fathomless abyss?
There was not death — yet was there naught immortal,
There was no confine betwixt day and night;
1 Up to the moment of interment a bow was carried in the hand of the deceased.
This was at last taken away to signify that his life-work was now done, and to others
remained the glory of conquests. The body was then tenderly committed to the earth.
Compare Whitney’s annotations on this hymn, and his essay on the Yedic Doctrine of
a Future Life in the Bibliotheca Sacra for April, 1859, and also in his Oriental and
Linguistic Studies, pp. 46-63. New York, 1873.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
SO
The only One breathed breathless by itself,
Other than It there nothing since lias been.
Darkness there was, and all at first was veiled
In gloom profound— an ocean without light —
The germ that still lay covered in the husk
Burst forth, one nature, from the fervent heat.
Then first came love upon it, the new spring
Of mind— yea, poets in their hearts discerned.
Pondering, this bond between created things
And uncreated. Comes this spark from earth
Piercing and all-pervading, or from heaven?
Then seeds were sown, and mighty powers arose—
Nature below, and power and will above—
Who knows the secret? who proclaimed it here,
Whence, whence this manifold creation sprang?
The gods themselves came later into being —
Who knows from whence this great creation sprang?
He from whom all this great creation came.
Whether his will created or was mute,
The Most High Seer that is in highest heaven,
He knows it — or perchance even He knows not.1 2
Every discerning reader must note the polytheistic teachings of
the Veda. Mr. Hardwick calls attention to this in the following
remarks: “If we lay aside expressions in the vedic hymns which
have occasionally transferred the attributes of power
and omnipresence to some one elemental deity, as In- mainly poiy-
dra, for example, and by so doing intimated that, even theistlc-
in the depths of nature-worship, intuitions pointing to one great and
all-embracing Spirit could not he extinguished, there are scarcely a
dozen ‘ mantras ’ in the whole collection where the unity of God is
stated with an adequate amount of firmness and consistency. The
great mass of those productions either invoke the aid, or deprecate
the wrath of multitudinous deities, who elsewhere are regarded as
no more than finite emanations from the ‘lord of the creatures;’
and therefore in the sacred books themselves polytheism was the
feature ever prominent, and, what is more remarkable, was never
openly repudiated.” a
1 Chips from a German Workshop, vol. i, pp. 76, 77.
2 Christ and other Masters, p. 1 84. Compare Introduction to the several volumes
of Wilson’s Translation of the Rig-Veda, and Colebrook’s Essay on the Vedas, first
published in the Asiatic Researches, and later in his collected works. Lond., 1878.
On the translation and interpretation of the Veda, see Muir, in Journal of the Royal
Asiatic Society (Lond., 1866), and Whitney, in the North American Review (1868);
also in his Oriental and Linguistic Studies, pp. 100-132.
40
INTRODUCTION TO
The Buddhist Canon.
Buddhism in India was a revolt from Brahmanism. Its founder
Life and influ- was Sakya-muni, sometimes called Gautama, being of
ence of sakya- the fami]y 0f the Sakyas, and the clan of the Gautamas,
oiia. and belonging by birth to the warrior class (Kshatriya).
Stripping the story of his life of the numerous fables and supersti¬
tious legends of later times, it would appear that this distinguished
child of the Sakyas grew up a beautiful and accomplished youth,
but took no interest in the common amusements of the young, and
gave himself much to solitude and meditation. The problems of
life and death and human suffering absorbed his inmost being. He
at length forsook parents and wife and home, and, after years of
study, penances, and austere self-denial, attained the conviction
that he must go forth among men as an Enlightener and Reformer.
Max Muller says : “ After long meditations and ecstatic visions, he
at last imagined that he had arrived at that true knowledge which
discloses the cause and thereby destroys the fear of ail the changes
inherent in life. It was from the moment when he arrived at this
knowledge that he claimed the name of Buddha, the Enlightened.
At that moment we may truly say that the fate of millions of mill¬
ions of human beings trembled in the balance. Buddha hesitated
for a time whether he should keep his knowledge to himself, or
communicate it to the world. Compassion for the sufferings of
man prevailed, and the young prince became the founder of a
religion which, after more than 2000 years, is still professed by
455,000,000 of human beings.” 1
Sakya-muni’s life, according to the best authorities, extended
Buddha a Re- over the latter part of the sixth and the first half of the
fifth century before Christ. He broke with Brahman¬
ism from the first, and pronounced himself against the Vedas, the
system of caste, and sacrifices. How far Kapila’s system of the
Sankhya philosophy may have been a preparation for Buddhism is a
question, but that Buddha became a mighty reformer, and that his
system almost succeeded for a time in overthrowing Brahmanism in
India, are matters of history. “ The human mind in Asia,” observes
J. F. Clarke, “went through the same course of experience after¬
ward repeated in Europe. It protested, in the interest of humanity,
against the oppression of a priestly caste. Brahmanism, like the
Church of Rome, established a system of sacramental salvation in
1 Essay on Buddhism, in Chips from a German Workshop, vol. i, p. 211.
s Comp. Hardwick, Christ and other Masters, pp. 147-169 ; and Miiller’s Chips from
a German Workshop, vol. i, pp. 222-226.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
41
the hands of a sacred order. Buddhism, like Protestantism, re¬
volted, and established a doctrine of individual salvation based on
personal character. Brahmanism, like the Church of Rome, teaches
an exclusive spiritualism, glorifying penances and martyrdom, and
considers the body the enemy of the soul. But Buddhism and
Protestantism accept nature and its laws, and make a religion of
humanity as well as of devotion. To such broad statements numer¬
ous exceptions may doubtless be always found, but these are the
large lines of distinction.” 1
The sacred scriptures of Buddhism are commonly called the
Tripitaka, which means the “three baskets,” or three compilation of
collections of religious documents. Buddha, like Jesus, the Tripitaka.
left no written statement of his teachings ; but very soon after his
death, according to tradition, a great council was called (about
B. C. 477), at* wlnoli the sayings of the great master were written
down with care. A hundred years later another council assembled,
to consider and correct certain deviations from the original faith.
But it was probably not until a third council, convened by King
Asoka about B. C. 242, that the Buddhist canon in its present form
was completed.2 At that great council King Asoka, “the Indian
Constantine,” admonished the members of the assembly “that what
had been said by Buddha, that alone was well said;” and at the
same time he provided for the propagation of Buddhism by mis¬
sionary enterprise. And it is worthy of note that, as Christianity
originated among the Jews, but has had its chief triumphs among
the Gentiles, so Buddhism originated among the Hindus, but has
won most of its adherents among other tribes and nations.
The Tripitaka, as we now possess it, consists of the Vinaya-
Pitaka, devoted to ethics and discipline; the Sutra- Contents and
Pitaka, containing the Sutras, or discourses of Buddha; magnitude of
and the Abhidharma-Pitaka, which treats of dogmatical th* Tnpitaka*
philosophy and metaphysics.3 The entire collection constitutes an
immense body of literature, rivaling in magnitude all that was ever
included under the title of Yeda. It is said to contain 29,368,000
letters, or more than seven times the number contained in our Eng¬
lish Bible. The Tibetan edition of the Tripitaka fills about three
hundred and twenty-five folio volumes. The mere titles of the
divisions, sub-divisions, and chapters of this Buddhist canon would
cover several pages. The greater portion of this immense liteia-
1 Ten Great Religions, pp. 142, 143. Boston, 1871.
2 See Oldenberg’s Introduction to the Vinaya-Pitaka, and Muller’s Introduction to
the Dhammapada, in vol. x, of Sacred Books of the East.
• 3 Comp. Chapter xviii, of Spence Hardy, Eastern Monachism. Lond., 1850.
42
INTRODUCTION TO
ture, in its most ancient texts, exists as yet only in manuscript.
But as Buddhism spread and triumphed mightily in southern and
eastern Asia, its sacred books have been translated into Pali, Bur¬
mese, Siamese, Tibetan, Chinese, and other Asiatic tongues. In
fact, every important nation or tribe, which has adopted Buddhism,
appears to have a more or less complete Buddhist literature of its
own, and the names of the different books and treatises vary accord¬
ing to the languages in which they are extant.1 2 Amid the multi¬
plicity of texts and versions it is impossible now to point with con¬
fidence to any authoritative original ; but the form of the canon as
it exists among the Southern Buddhists, and especially in the Pali
texts, is esteemed most highly by scholars.
The fundamental doctrines of Buddhism are few and simple, and,
Principal doc- *n su^stance, may be briefly stated as consisting of the
trines of Bud- Four Verities, the Eightfold Path, and the Five Com¬
mandments. The Four sublime Verities are, (1) All ex¬
istence, being subject to change and decay, is evil. (2) The source
of all this evil and consequent sorrow is desire. (3) Desire and the
evil which follows it may be made to cease. (4) There is a fixed
and certain way by which to attain exemption from all evil. The
Eightfold Path consists of (1) Bight Belief, (2) Bight Judgment,
(3) Bight Utterance, (4) Bight Motives, (5) Bight Occupation,
(6) Bight Obedience, (7) Bight Memory, and (8) Bight Meditation.
The Five Commandments are, (1) Do not kill; (2) Do not steal;
(3) Do not lie; (4) Do not become intoxicated; (5) Do not commit
adultery. There are also five other well-known precepts, which
have not, however, the grade of the commandments, namely, (1) Do
not take solid food after" noon; (2) Do not visit scenes of amuse¬
ment; (3) Do not use ornaments or perfumery in dress; (4) Do not
use luxurious beds; (5) Do not accept gold or silver.3
Specimens of Bud- The following passage from the first chapter of the
dha’s discourses. Maha-Parinibbana-Sutta, one of. the subdivisions of
the Sutra-Pitaka, is a specimen of the discourses of Buddha :
And the Blessed One arose, and went to the Service Hall; and when he
was seated, he addressed the brethren, and said :
“I will teach you, O mendicants, seven conditions of the welfare of a
community. Listen well and attend, and I will speak.”
1 Thus the Sanskrit name Tripitaka becomes Tipitaka and Pitakattaya in Pali, and Tun-
pitaka in Singhalese. Buddhism itself becomes Foism in China, and Lamaism in Thibet.
2 For an extensive presentation of the doctrines and usages of Buddhism, see Spence
Hardy, Eastern Monaehism; also his Manual of Buddhism, New Edition, Lond., 1880.
Edwin Arnold has beautifully expressed in poetical form the leading doctrines of
Buddha, in the eighth book of his Light of Asia.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
43
“Even so, Lord,” said the Brethren, in assent, to the Blessed One; and
he spake as follows :
“ So long, O mendicants, as the brethren meet together in full and fre¬
quent assemblies — so long as they meet together in concord, and rise in
concord, and carry out in concord the duties of the order — so long as the
brethren shall establish nothing that has not been already prescribed, and
abrogate nothing that has been already established, and act in accordance
with the rules of the order as now laid down — so long as the brethren hon¬
our and esteem and revere and support the elders of experience and long
standing, the fathers and leaders of the order, and hold it a point of duty
to hearken to their words — so long as the brethren fall not under the influ¬
ence of that craving which, springing up within them, would give rise to
renewed existence— so long as the brethren delight in a life of solitude— so
long as the brethren so train their minds that good and holy men shall
come to them, and those who have come shall dwell at ease — so long may
the brethren be expected not to decline, but to prosper.
“So long as these seven conditions shall continue to exist among the
brethren, so long as they are well instructed in these conditions, so long
may the brethren be expected not to decline, but to prosper.”
“ Other seven conditions of welfare will I teach you, O brethren. Listen
well, and attend, and I will speak.”
And on their expressing their assent, he spake as follows:
“ So long as the brethren shall not engage in, or be fond of, or be con¬
nected with business — so long as the brethren shall not be in the habit of,
or be fond of, or be partakers in idle talk — so long as the brethren shall
not be addicted to, or be fond of, or indulge in sloth fulness— so long as the
brethren shall not frequent, or be fond of, or indulge in society— so long
as the brethren shall neither have, nor fall under the influence of, sinful
desires — so long as the brethren shall not become the friends, companions,
or intimates of dinners— so long as the brethren shall not come to a stop on
their way [to Nirvana] because they have attained to any lesser thing— so
long may the brethren be expected not to decline, but to prosper.
“So long as these conditions shall continue to exist among the brethren,
so long as they are instructed in these conditions, so long may the brethren
be expected not to decline, but to prosper.”
“Other seven conditions of welfare will I teach you, O brethren. Listen
well, and attend, and I will speak.”
And on their expressing their assent, he spake as follows:
“So long as the brethren shall be full of faith, modest in heart, afiaid
of sin, full of learning, strong in energy, active in mind, and full of wis¬
dom, so long may the brethren be expected not to decline, but to pro&pei.
“So long as these conditions shall continue to exist among the brethren,
so long as they are instructed in these conditions, so long may the brethren
be expected not to decline, but to prosper.”
“ Other seven conditions of welfare will I teach you, O brethren. Listen
well, and attend, and I will speak.”
And on their expressing their assent, he spake as follows:
“ So long as the brethren shall exercise themselves in the sevenfold higher
44
INTRODUCTION TO
wisdom, that is to say, in mental activity, search after truth, energy, joy,
peace, earnest contemplation, and equanimity of mind, so long may the
brethren be expected not to decline, but to prosper.
“So long as these conditions shall continue to exist among the brethren,
so long as they are instructed in these conditions, so long may the brethren
be expected not to decline, but to prosper.”
“ Other seven conditions of welfare will I teach you, O brethren. Listen
well, and attend, and I will speak.”
And on their expressing their assent, he spake as follows :
“So long as the brethren shall exercise themselves in the sevenfold per¬
ception due to earnest thought, that is to say, the perception of imperma-
nency, of non-individuality, of corruption, of the danger of sin, of sanctifica¬
tion, of purity of heart, of Nirvana, so long may the brethren be expected
not to decline, but to prosper.
“ So long as these conditions shall continue to exist among the brethren,
so long as they are instructed in these conditions, so long may the brethren
be expected not to decline, but to prosper.”
“Six conditions of welfare will I teach you, O brethren. Listen well,
and attend, and I will speak.”
And on their expressing their assent, he spake as follows:
“ So long as the brethren shall persevere in kindness of action, speech,
and thought among the saints, both in public and in private — so long as
they shall divide without partiality, and share in common with the up¬
right and the holy, all such things as they receive in accordance with the
just provisions of the order, down even to the mere contents of a begging
bowl— so long as the brethren shall live among the saints in the practice,
both in public and in private, of those virtues which (unbroken, intact, un¬
spotted, unblemished) are productive of freedom, and praised by the wise;
which are untarnished by the desire of future life, or by the belief in the
efficacy of outward acts; and which are conducive to high and holy
thoughts — so long as the brethren shall live among the saints, cherishing,
both in public and in private, that noble and saving faith which leads to
the complete destruction of the sorrow of him who acts according to it _ so
long may the brethren be expected not to decline, but to prosper.
“So long as these six conditions shall continue to exist among the
brethren, so long as they are instructed in these six conditions, so* long
may the brethren be expected not to decline, but to prosper.”
And while the Blessed One stayed there at Ragagaha on the Vulture’s
Peak he held that comprehensive religious talk with the brethren on the
nature of upright conduct, and of earnest contemplation, and of intelli¬
gence. “Great is the fruit, great the advantage of earnest contemplation
when set round with upright conduct. Great is the fruit, great the advan¬
tage of intellect when set round with earnest contemplation. The mind
set round with intelligence is freed from the great evils, that is to say, from
sensuality, from individuality, from delusion, and from ignorance.” ^
1 Buddhist Suttas, translated from Pali, by T. W. Rhys Davids, pp. 6-11, vol. xi of
Sacred Books of the East. Oxford, 1881.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
45
The following is the twentieth chapter of the Dhammapada, an¬
other subdivision of the Sutra-Pitaka :
The best of ways is the eightfold ; the best of truths the four words; the
best of virtues passionlessness ; the best of men he who has eyes to see.
This is the way. there is no other that leads to the purifying of intelli¬
gence. Go on this way I Everything else is the deceit of Mara (the tempter).
If you go on this way, you will make an end of pain! The way was
preached by me, when I had understood the removal of the thorns (in the
flesh).
You yourself must make an effort. The Tathagatas (Buddhas) are only
preachers. The thoughtful who enter the way are freed from the bondage
of Mara.
“All created things perish,” he who knows and sees this becomes passive
in pain ; this is the way to purity.
“All created things are grief and pain,” he who knows and sees this be¬
comes passive in pain; this is the way that leads to purity.
“All forms are unreal,” he who knows and sees this becomes passive in
pain ; this is the way that leads to purity.
He who does not rouse himself when it is time to rise, who, though
young and strong, is full of sloth, whose will and thought are weak, that
lazy and idle man will never find the way to knowledge.
Watching his speech, well restrained in mind, let a man never commit
any wrong with his body! Let a man keep these three roads of action
clear, and he will achieve the way which is taught by the wise.
Through zeal knowledge is gotten, through lack of zeal knowledge is
lost; let a man who knows this double path of gain and loss thus place
himself that knowledge may grow.
Cut down the whole forest (of lust), not a tree only! Danger comes out
of the forest (of lust). When you have cut down both the forest (of lust)
and its undergrowth, then, Bhikshus, you will be rid of the forest and free!
So long as the love of man toward women, even the smallest, is not de¬
stroyed, so long is his mind in bondage, as the calf that drinks milk is to
its mother.
Cut out the love of self, like an autumn lotus, with thy hand ! Cherish
the road of peace. Nirvana lias been shown by Sugata (Buddha).
“Here I shall dwell in the rain, here in winter and summer,” thus the
fool meditates, and does not think of his death.
Death comes and carries off that man, praised for his children and flocks,
his mind distracted, as a flood carries off a sleeping village.
Sons are no help, nor a father, nor relations; there is no help from kins¬
folk for one whom death has seized.
A wise and good man who knows the meaning of this, should quickly
clear the way that leads to Nirvana.1
1 The Dhammapada, translated by F. Max Muller, pp. 67-69, vol. x, of Sacred Books
of the East. Oxford, 1881. Published also along with Rogers’ translation of Buddha-
ghosha’s Parables (Loud., 1870), and Muller’s Lectures on the Science of Religion.
New York, 1872.
46
INTRODUCTION TO
Chinese Sacred Books.
Three diverse religious systems prevail in China — Buddhism,
Three religions Taoism, and Confucianism, each of which has a vast
of china. multitude of adherents. The sacred books of the first
named consist of translations of the Buddhist canon from various
languages of India, principally, however, from the Sanskrit, and
need no separate notice here.1 The great book of Taoism is the
Tao-teh-King, a production of the celebrated philosopher Laotsze,
who was born about six hundred years before the Christian era.
The sacred books of Confucianism are commonly known as the five
King and the four Shu.
The Tao-teh-King is scarcely entitled to the name of a sacred
The Tao-teh- book. It is rather a philosophical treatise, by an acute
King. speculative mind, and resembles some of the subtle por¬
tions of Plato’s dialogues. It is about the length of the book of
Ecclesiastes, to which it also bears some resemblance. But it is de¬
nied, on high authority, that there is any real connexion between
Taoism as a religion now prevalent in China and this book of
Laotsze.2 The Tao-teh-King has been divided into eighty-one
short chapters, and is devoted to the inculcation and praise of what
the author calls his Too. What all this word is designed to rep¬
resent is very difficult, if not impossible, to determine. In the In¬
troduction to his translation of the work, Chalmers says : “ I have
thought it better to leave the word Too untranslated, both because
The meaning it has given the name to the sect (the Taoists), and be-
ofTao. cause no English word is its exact equivalent. Three
terms suggest themselves — the Way, Reason, and the Word; but
they are all liable to objection. Were we guided by etymology,
‘the Way,’ would come nearest to the original, and in one or two
passages the idea of a way seems to be in the term ; but this is too
materialistic to serve the purpose of a translation. ‘ Reason,’ again,
seems to be more like a quality or attribute of some conscious being
than Too is. I would translate it by ‘the Word,’ in the sense of
the Logos, but this would be like settling the question which I wish
to leave open, viz., what amount of resemblance there is between
the Logos of the New Testament and this Too , which is its nearest
representative in Chinese. In our version of the New Testament
1 The extent of this literature may be seen in Beal’s Catena of Buddhist Scriptures
from the Chinese. Lond., 1871.
2 See Legge, Lectures on the Religions of China. Lecture 3d, on Taoism as a Re¬
ligion and a Philosophy. New York, 1881.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
47
in Chinese we have in the first chapter of John, ‘In the beginning
was Tao ,’ etc.” 1
Others have sought by other terms to express the idea of Tao.
It has been called the Supreme Reason, the Universal Soul, the
Eternal Idea, the Nameless Void, Mother of being, and Lake's ac-
Essence of things. The following is from Laotsze him- count of Tao.
self, and one of the best specimens of his book, being the whole of
chapter twenty-fifth, as translated by Chalmers :
There was something chaotic in nature which existed before heaven and
earth. It was still. It was void. It stood alone and was not changed.
It pervaded everywhere and was not endangered. It may be regarded as
the mother of the universe. I know not its name, but give it the title of
Tao. If I am forced to make a name for it, I say it is Great; being great,
I say that it passes away; passing away, I say that it is far off; being far
off, I say that it returns. Now Tao is great; heaven is great; earth is
great; a king is great. In the universe there are four greatnesses, and a
king is one of them. Man takes his law from the earth; the earth takes its
law from heaven ; heaven takes its law from Tao ; and Tao takes its law from
what it is in itself.
The moral teachings of the book may be seen in chapters sixty-
third and sixty-seventh, which are thus translated by Legge :
(It is the way of Tao) not to act from any personal motive ; to conduct
affairs without feeling the trouble of them; to taste without being aware
of the flavour; to account the great as small and the small as great; to
recompense injury with kindness.
(The follower of Tao) anticipates things that would become difficult
while they are easy, and does things that would become great while they
are little. The difficult things in the world arise from what are easy, and
the great things from what are small. Thus it is that the sage never does
what is great, and therefore can accomplish the greatest things.
He who assents lightly will be found to keep but little faith. He who
takes many things easily is sure to meet with many difficulties. Hence the
sage sees difficulty in (what seem) easy things, and therefore never has any
difficulties.
All in the world say that my Tao is great, but that I seem to be inferior
to others. Now it is just this greatness which makes me seem inferior to
others. Those who are deemed equal to others have long been— small men.
But there are three precious things which I prize and hold fast. The
first is gentle compassion; the second is economy; the third is (humility),
not presuming to take precedence in the world. With gentle compassion
I can be brave. With economy I can be liberal. Not presuming to claim
1 The Speculations on Metaphysics, Polity, and Morality, of “ the Old Philosopher,”
Laotsze; translated from the Chinese, with an Introduction by John Chalmers, A.M.,
pp. xi, xii. Lond., 1868.
48
INTRODUCTION TO
precedence in the world, I can make myself a vessel fit for the most distin*
guished services. Now-a-days they give up gentle compassion, and culti¬
vate (mere physical) courage ; they give lip economy, and (try to bo) lavish
(without it); they give up being last, and seek to be first: — of all which
the end is death. Gentle compassion is sure to overcome in fight, and to
be firm in maintaining its own. Heaven will save its possessor, protecting
him by his gentleness.1
It has been disputed whether the Tao-teh-King acknowledges
Leaves the per- the existence of a personal God. Professor Douglas
of^^ddoubS declares that Laotsze knew nothing of such a being,
fui. and that the whole tenor of his philosophy antagonizes
such a belief. Legge, on the other hand, affirms that the Tao-teh-
King does recognize the existence of God, but contains no direct
religious teaching. Laotsze’s Taoism, he observes, is the exhibition
of a way or method of living which men should cultivate as the
highest and purest development of their nature. It has served as
a discipline of mind and life for multitudes, leading some to with¬
draw entirely from the busy world, and others to struggle earnestly
to keep themselves from the follies and passions of reckless and
ambitious men. The highest moral teaching of Laotsze is found in
the chapter sixty-third, quoted $bove, in which he says that Tao
prompts “ to recompense injury with kindness.” In this particular
he surpassed Confucius, whose great glory it was to enunciate, in
negative form, the golden rule, “ What you do not want done to
yourself, do not do to others.” Confucius confessed that he did
not always keep his own rule, much less could he adopt the loftier
precept of Laotsze, but said rather, “Recompense injury with jus¬
tice, and return good for good.” 2
Far more extensive and important, however, taken as a whole,
Confucius and are the sacred books of Confucianism, which is par ex-
cSnese^crS- ce^en^ the religion of the Chinese Empire. But Con-
ures. fucius was not the founder of the religion which has
become attached to his name. He claimed merely to have studied
deeply into antiquity, and to -be a transmitter and teacher of the
records and worship of the past. “ It is an error,” says Legge,
“ to suppose that he compiled the historical documents, poems, and
other ancient books from various works existing in his time. Por¬
tions of the oldest works had already perished. His study of those
that remained, and his exhortations to his disciples also to study
them, contributed to their preservation. What he wrote or said
about their meaning should be received by us with reverence ; but
1 Lectures on the Religions of China, pp. 222-224.
9 Comp. Legge, Ibid., pp. 143 and passim.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
49
if all the works which he handled had come down to us entire, we
should have been, so far as it is possible for foreigners to be, in the
same position as he was for learning the ancient religion of his
country. Our text-books would be the same as his. Unfortunate¬
ly most of the ancient books suffered loss and injury after Confu¬
cius had passed from the stage of life. We have reason, however,
to be thankful that we possess so many and so much of them. No
other literature, comparable to them for antiquity, has come down
to us in such a state of preservation.” 1
The five King are known respectively as the Shu, the Shih, the
Yi, the Li Ki, and the Khun Khiu.3 The name King , Names of the
which means a web of cloth, or the warp which keeps flve Kin£*
the threads in place, came into use in the time of the Han dynasty,
about B. C. 200, and was applied by the scholars of this period to
the most valuable ancient books, which were regarded as having a
sort of canonical authority.
The Shu King is a book of historical documents, somewhat re¬
sembling the various historical portions of the Old
__ ° , , . . , p The Shu King.
Testament, and is believed to be the oldest ot all the
Chinese books. Its contents relate to a period extending over sev¬
enteen centuries, from about B. C. 2357 to B. C. 627. It commences
with an account of Yao, the most venerable of the ancient kings, of
whom it is written : “ He was reverential, intelligent, accomplished,
and thoughtful,— naturally and without effort. He was sincerely
courteous, and capable of all complaisance. The bright influence
of these qualities was felt through the four quarters of the land,
and reached to heaven above and earth beneath. He made the
able and virtuous distinguished, and thence proceeded to the love
of all in the nine classes of his kindred, who thus became harmoni¬
ous. He also regulated and polished the people of his domain, who
all became brightly intelligent. Finally, he united and harmonized
the myriad states; and so the black-haired people were transformed.
The result was universal concord.”
The Shu King is about equal in extent to the two books of
Chronicles, and is divided into five parts, which are designated re¬
spectively, the books of Thang, Yu, Hsia, Shang, and Kau. These
are the names of so many different ancient dynasties which ruled in
China, and the several books consist of the annals, speeches, counsels,
and proclamations of the great kings and ministers of the ancients.
1 Preface to his translation of the Shu King in vol. iii of the Sacred Books of the
East, as edited by Max Muller. _
2 We here adopt the orthography followed by Legge in his translations for the Sa¬
cred Books of the East.
4
50
INTRODUCTION TO
The following passage is one of the most favourable specimens, and
illustrates the tone and character of Chinese morality, and their
most popular conceptions of virtue. It is from the third book
of Part II, which is entitled “The Counsels of Kao-yao.” Kao-
yao was the minister of crime under the reign of the great Emperor
Shun (about 2300 B. C.), and is celebrated as a model administrator
of justice •
Kao-yao said, “O! there are in all nine virtues to be discovered in con¬
duct, and when we say that a man possesses (any) virtue, that is as much
as to say he do.es such and such things.” Yu asked, “What (are the nine
virtues)?” Kao-yao replied, “Affability combined with dignity ; mildness
combined with firmness; bluntness combined with respectfulness; aptness
for government combined with reverent caution; docility combined with
boldness ; straightforwardness combined with gentleness ; an easy negli¬
gence combined with discrimination; boldness combined with sincerity;
and valour combined with righteousness. (When these qualities are) dis¬
played, and that continuously, have we not the good (officer)? When there
is a daily display of three (of these) virtues, their possessor could early and
late regulate and brighten the clan (of which he was made chief). When
there is a daily severe and reverent cultivation of six of them, their pos¬
sessor could brilliantly conduct the affairs of the state (with which he was
invested). When (such men) are all received and advanced, the possessors
of those nine virtues will be employed in (the public) service. The men
of a thousand and men of a hundred will be in their offices; the various
ministers will emulate one another; all the officers will accomplish their
duties at the proper times, observant of the five seasons (as the several
elements predominate in them).— and thus their various duties will be fully
accomplished. Let not (the Son of Heaven) set to the holders of states the
example of indolence or dissoluteness. Let him be wary and fearful (re¬
membering that) in one day or two days there may occur ten thousand
springs of things. Let him not have his various officers cumberers of their
places. The work is Heaven’s ; men must act for it ! ”
A passage in Part V, Book 4, thus enumerates the five sources
of happiness, and the six extreme evils :
The first is long life; the second, riches; the third, soundness of body
and serenity of mind ; the fourth, the love of virtue; and the fifth, fulfilling
to the end the will of Heaven. Of the six extreme evils, the first is mis¬
fortune shortening life; the second, sickness; the third, distress of mind;
the fourth, poverty; the fifth, wickedness; the sixth, weakness.
The Shih King is a book of poetry, and contains three hundred
The Shih King. and five Pieces> commonly called odes. It is the psalter
of the Chinese bible, and consists of ballads relating to
customs and events of Chinese antiquity, and songs and hymns to
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
51
be sung on great state occasions and in connexion with sacrificial
services.1 2 The following is a fair example of the odes used in con¬
nexion with the worship of ancestors. A young king, feeling his
responsibilities, would fain follow the example of his’ father, and
prays to him for help :
I take counsel, at tlie beginning of my rule,
How I can follow the example of my shrined father.
Ah ! far-reaching were his plans,
And I am not yet able to carry them out.
However, I endeavour to reach to them,
My continuation of them will still be all-deflected.
I am a little child,
Unequal to the many difficulties of the state.
Having taken his place, I will look for him to go up
and come down in the court,
To ascend and descend in the house.
Admirable art thou, O great Father;
Condescend to preserve and enlighten me.*
The Yi King is commonly called “ the Book of Changes,” from
its supposed illustrations of the onward course of nature
and the changing customs of the world.3 It contains The YI King*
eight trigrams, ascribed to Fuhsi, the mythical founder of the
Chinese nation, and hence some have believed it to be the oldest of
all the Chinese scriptures. But according to Legge, “ not a single
character in the Yi is older than the twelfth century B. C. The
text of it, not taking in the appendices of Confucius, consists of
two portions — from king Wan, and from his son, the duke of
Chau. The composition of Wan’s portion is referred to the year
B. C. 1143. As an authority for the ancient religion of China,
therefore, the Yi is by no means equal to the Shu and the Shih.
It is based on diagrams, or lineal figures, ascribed to Fuhsi, and
made up of whole and divided lines ( - and - ). What their
framer intended by these figures we do not know. No doubt there
was a tradition about it, and I am willing to believe that it found
a home in the existing Yi. . . . The character called Yi is the
symbol for the idea of change. The fashion of the world is con¬
tinually being altered. We have action and re-action, flux and
reflux — now one condition, and immediately its opposite. The
1 See The Shih King; or the Book of Ancient Poetry, translated into English Verse,
with Essays and Notes, by James Legge. Lond., 1876.
2 Decade III, Ode 2, p. 329, Sacred Books of the East, vol. iii. Oxford, 1879.
9 The Yi King is translated and annotated by Legge in vol. xvi of the Sacred Books
of the East. Oxford, 1882.
53
INTRODUCTION TO
vicissitudes in the worlds of sense and society have their correspon¬
dencies in the changes that take place in the lines of the diagrams.
Again, certain relations and conditions of men and things lead to
good, are fortunate; and certain others lead to evil, are unfortunate;
and these results are indicated by the relative position of the lines*
Those lines were systematically changed by manipulating with a
fixed number of the stalks of a certain plant. In this way the Yi
served the purpose of divination; and since such is the nature of
the book, a reader must be prepared for much in it that is tantaliz¬
ing, fantastic, and perplexing.” 1
The two remaining classics are of less interest and imjmrtance.
The Li ki and The Li Ki King is a record of rites, consisting of three
the Khun Khiu. collections, called “the Three Rituals,” and is the most
bulky of the Five King. It contains regulations for the administra¬
tion of the government, describes the various officers and their
duties, and the rules of etiquette by which scholars and officers
should order their conduct on social and state occasions. The
Khun Khiu King is of the nature of a supplement to the historical
annals of the Shu King. It was compiled by Confucius from the
annals of his native state of Lu, and extends from the year B. C. 722
to B. C. 481.
The Chinese classics known as “the Four Shu” have not the
rank and authority of the Five King. They are the works of dis¬
ciples of Confucius, and consist (1) of the Lun Yu, or Discourses
of Confucius and conversations between him and his followers ;
(2) the works of Mencius, next to Confucius the greatest sage and
teacher of Confucianism; (3) the Ta Hsio, or Great Learning,
ascribed to Tszang-tsze, a disciple of Confucius ; and (4) the Kung
Yung, or Doctrine of the Mean, a production of Tszesze, the grand¬
son of Confucius.2 There is also the Hsiao King, or Classic of
Filial Piety, which holds a high place in Chinese literature.3
In the preface to his translation of the Sacred Books of China,
Legge observes, “that the ancient books of China do not profess to
have been inspired, or to contain what we should call a Revelation.
Historians, poets, and others wrote them as they were moved in
their own minds. An old poem may occasionally contain what it
says was spoken by God, but we can only understand that language
as calling attention emphatically to the statement to which it is
1 The Religions of China, pp. 37, 38.
* See The Chinese Classics, with a Translation, Critical and Exegetical Notes, Pro¬
legomena, and copious Indexes. Hong Kong, 1861-1865.
8 The Hsiao King is translated and annotated by Legge in vol. iii of Sacred Books
of the East.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
53
prefixed. We also read of Heaven’s raising up the great ancient
sovereigns and teachers, and variously assisting them to accomplish
their undertakings; but all this need not be more than what a relig¬
ious man of any country might affirm at the present day of direc¬
tion, help, and guidance given to himself and others from above.”
Whatever the true solution of the questions may be, the facts
that distinguished Chinese scholars dispute as to whether the Con-
fucian Sacred Books recognize the existence of a personal God, and
that missionaries, in translating the Christian Scriptures into Chi¬
nese, scruple over a word that will properly represent the Christian
idea of God, show the comparative vagueness and obscurity of the
religion of the Chinese scriptures.
The Egyptian Book of the Dead.
A most mysterious and interesting work is the Sacred Book of
the ancient Egyptians, commonly known as the Book of the Dead.
Some Egyptologists prefer the title “ Funeral Ritual,” inasmuch
as it contains many prescriptions and prayers to be used It3 difrerent
in funeral services, and the vignettes which appear on names,
many copies represent funeral processions, and priests reading the
formularies out of a book. But as the prayers are, for the most
part, the language to be used by the departed in their progress
through the under world, the title “Book of the Dead” has been
generally adopted.
The Egyptian title of the work is, Book of the Peri em hru , three
simple words, but by no means easy of explanation when taken to¬
gether without a context.1 Peri signifies “coming forth,” hru is
“day,” and em is the preposition signifying “from,” susceptible,
like the same preposition in other languages, of a variety of uses.
The probable meaning of Peri em hru is “ coming forth by day,”
and is to be understood mainly of the immortality and resurrection
of the dead. The book exists in a great number of manuscripts
recovered from Egyptian tombs, and the text is very corrupt; for
as the writing was not intended for mortal eyes, but to be buried
with the dead, copyists would hot be likely to be very scrupulous in
their work. But the book exists not only on papyrus rolls that
were deposited in the tombs, but many of the chapters are inscribed
upon coffins, mummies, sepulchral wrappings, statues, and the walls
of tombs. Some tombs may be said to contain entire recensions of
1 The Religion of Ancient Egypt, by P. Le Page Renouf. Hibbert Lectures for
1879, p. 181. New York, 1880. Our account of the Book of the Bead is condensed
mainly from Renouf’s fifth Lecture.
54
INTRODUCTION TO
the book. But no two copies contain exactly the same chapters, or
Corrupt and follow the same arrangement. The papyrus of Turin,
dition^of C°he Polished by Lepsius, contains one hundred and sixty-
text. five chapters, and is the longest known. But a consider¬
able number of chapters found in other manuscripts are not included
in it. None of the copies contain the entire collection of chapters,
but the more ancient manuscripts have fewer chapters than the
more recent. There is a great uniformity of style and of grammat¬
ical forms, as compared with other productions of Egyptian litera¬
ture, and nothing can exceed the simplicity and brevity of the
sentences. A critical collation of a sufficient number of copies of
each chapter will, in time, restore the text to as accurate a standard
as could be attained in the most flourishing days of the old Egyp¬
tian monarchy.
The book is mythological throughout,1 and assumes the reader’s
its obscurity with its myths and legends. The difficulty
in the subject of its exposition is not in literally translating the text,
matter. but in understanding the meaning concealed beneath
familiar words. The English translation by Samuel Birch, pub¬
lished in the fifth volume of Bunsen’s Egypt’s Place in Universal
History, is an exact rendering of the text of the Turin manuscript,
and. to an Englishman gives nearly as correct an impression of the
original as the text itself would do to an Egyptian who had not
been carefully taught the mysteries of his religion.
The foundation of Egyptian mythology is the legend of Osiris.8
The Osiris le- Having long ruled in Egypt, he was at last slain by the
gend tjbebasis evy. Typhon, enclosed in a mummy case, and cast into
mythology. the river Nile. Isis, his sister and spouse, sought long
for his body, and at length found it at Byblus, on the Phoenician
coast, where it had been tossed by the waves. She brought it back
to Egypt, and buried it; and when Horus, their son, grew up, he
slew the evil Typhon, and so avenged his father. Osiris, however,
was not dead. He had, in fact, descended to the under world, and
established his dominion there, and at the same time revived in the
person of his son Horus, and renewed his dominion over the living,
1 “ The Ritual,” says Birch, “ is, according to Egyptian notions, essentially an in¬
spired work ; and the term Hermetic, ,so often applied by profane writers to these
books, in reality means inspired. It is Thoth himself who speaks and reveals the
will of the gods and the mysterious nature of divine things to man. . . . Portions of
them are expressly stated to have been written by the very finger of Thoth himself,
and to have been the composition of a great God.” Introduction to his translation of
the Funeral Ritual, in Bunsen’s Egypt’s Place in Universal History, vol. v, p. 133.
2 On this Egyptian legend comp. Bunsen, Egypt’s Place in Universal History, vol. i^
pp. 423-439, and George Rawlinson, History of Ancient Egypt, vol. i, pp. 365-371.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
55
The usual explanation of this legend makes it a mythical por¬
traiture of the annual dying and reviving of the powers
c . .. , 1 The probable
ot nature under the peculiar conditions of the valley of meaning of the
the Nile. Osiris represents the fertilizing river; Isis myth‘
the fruit-bearing land; Typhon the evil spirit of the parched des¬
erts and the salt sea, the demon of drought and barrenness. Horus
is the sun, appearing in the vernal equinox, and heralding the rising
of the Nile. Accordingly, when the Nile sinks before the scorch¬
ing winds of the Libyan desert, Osiris is slain by Typhon. Isis,
the land, then sighs and yearns for her lost brother and spouse.
But when the Nile again overflows, it is a resurrection of Osiris,
and the vernal sun destroys the demon of drought and renews the
face of nature. Other slightly varying explanations of the legend
have been given, but whatever particular view we adopt, it will be
easy to see how the drapery of these legends might, in course of
time, come to be used of the death and resurrection of man. Hence
we find that the names of mythical personages are constantly re¬
curring in the Book of the Dead.
The beatification of the dead is the main subject of the book.
The blessed dead are represented as enjoying an exis- _ „
tence similar to that which they had led on earth. They the dead the
have the use of all their limbs, eat and drink, and satisfy main sub;iect*
all their physical wants as in their earthly life. But they are not
confined to any one locality, or to any one form or mode of exis¬
tence. They have the range of the entire universe, in every shape
and form which they desire. Twelve chapters of the Book of the
Dead consist of formulas to be used in effecting certain transforma¬
tions. The forms assumed, according to these chapters, are the
turtledove, the serpent Sata, the bird Bennu, the crocodile Sebek,
the god Ptah, a golden hawk, the chief of the principal gods, a
soul, a lotusflower, and a heron. The transformations to which
these chapters refer, however, are far from exhausting the list of
possible ones. No limit is imposed on the will of the departed, and
in this respect the Egyptian doctrine of transmigration differs wide¬
ly from the Pythagorean.
Throughout the Book of the Dead, the identification of the de¬
ceased with Osiris, or assimilation to him, is taken for identification
granted, and all the deities of the family of Osiris are with 0siris-
supposed to perform for the deceased whatever the legend records
as having been done for Osiris himself. Thus, in the eighteenth
chapter, the deceased is brought before a series of divinities in
succession, the gods of Heliopolis, Abydos, and other localities, and
at each station the litany begins :
56
INTRODUCTION TO
O Teliuti [or Thotli], who causest Osiris to triumph against his oppo¬
nents, cause the Osiris (such a one) to triumph against his opponents, even
as thou hast made Osiris to triumph against his opponents.
In the next chapter, which is another recension of the eighteenth,
and is entitled the “Crown of Triumph,” the deceased is declared
triumphant forever, and all the gods in heaven and earth repeat
this, and the chapter ends with the following:
Homs has repeated this declaration four times, and all his enemies fall
prostrate before him annihilated. Horus, the son of Isis, repeats it millions
of times, and all his enemies fall annihilated. They are carried off to the
place of execution in the East ; their heads are cut off, their necks are brok¬
en; their thighs are severed, and delivered up to the great destroyer who
dwells in Aati; they shall not come forth from the custody of Seb forever.
But not to Osiris only is the deceased assimilated. In the forty-
other assimi- second chapter every limb is assimilated to a different
latkms. deity; the hair to Nu, the face to Ra, the eyes to
Hathor, the ears to Apuat, the nose to the god of Sechem, the lips
to Anubis, the teeth to Selket, and so on, the catalogue ending with
the words : “ There is not a limb in him without a god, and Teliuti
is a safeguard to all his members.” Further on it is said :
Not men, nor gods, nor the ghosts of the departed, nor the damned,
past, present, or future, whoever they be, can do him hurt. He it is who
cometh forth in safety. “Whom men know not” is his name. The “Yes¬
terday which sees endless years” is his name, passing in triumph by the
roads of heaven. The deceased is the Lord of eternity ; he is reckoned even
as Chepera; he is the master of the kingly crown.
The one hundred and forty-ninth chapter gives an account of the
Dangers of the terrible nature of certain divinities and localities which
deceased. the deceased must encounter — gigantic and venomous
serpents, gods with names significant of death and destruction,
waters and atmospheres of flames. But none of these prevail over
the Osiris ; he passes through all things without harm, and lives in
peace with the fearful gods who preside over these abodes. Some
of these gods remind one of the demons in Dante’s Inferno. But
though ministers of divine justice, their nature is not evil. The
following are invocations, from the seventeenth chapter, to be used
of one passing through these dangers :
O Ra, in thine egg, radiant in thy disk shining forth from the horizon,
swimming over the steel firmament, sailing over the pillars of Shu ; thou
who hast no second among the gods, who producest the winds by the
flames of thy mouth, and who enlightenest the worlds with thy splendours,
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
57
save the departed from that god whose nature is a mystery, and whose
eyebrows are as the arms of the balance on the night when Aauit was
weighed. . . . O Scarabaeus god in thy bark, whose substance is self-orig¬
inated, save the Osiris from those watchers to whom the Lord of spirits
has entrusted the observation of his enemies, and from whose observations
none can escape. Let me not fall under their swords, nor go to their
blocks of execution ; let me not remain in their abodes; let me not rest upon
their beds [of torment] ; let me not fall into their nets. Let naught befall
me which the gods abhor.
We have not space for further illustrations of this most interest¬
ing work. It will be seen how this Funeral Ritual, or Book of the
Dead, embodies the Egyptian doctrines of a future state, and the
rewards and punishments of that after life.1 2 But it will also be
observed how thoroughly its theology is blended with all that is
superstitious and degrading in a polytheistic mythology.
The Koran.
The Mohammedan Bible is a comparatively modern book, and
easily accessible to English readers.3 It is about half the size of
the Old Testament, and contains one hundred and four- Generai char-
teen chapters, called Suras. It is doubtful whether acter.
Mohammed ever learned to read or write. He dictated his revela¬
tions to his disciples, and they wrote them on date leaves, bits of
parchment, tablets of white stone, and shoulder-blades of sheep.
These were written during the last twenty years of the prophet’s
life, and a year after his death the different fragments were col¬
lected by his followers, and arranged according to the length of the
chapters, beginning with the longest and ending with the shortest.
So the book, as regards its contents, presents a strange medley,
having no real beginning, middle, or end. And yet it is probably
a faithful transcript of Mohammed’s mind and heart as exhibited
during the latter portion of his life. In some passages he seems to
have been inspired with a holy zeal, and eloquently proclaims the
glory of Almighty God, the merciful and compassionate. Other
1 See J. P. Thompson’s Article on the Egyptian Doctrine of a Future State, in the
Bibliotheca Sacra, January, 1868, in which a fair analysis of the teachings of the Book
of the Dead is given.
2 Sale’s English version of the Koran has been published in many forms, and his
Preliminary Discourse is invaluable for the study of Islam. The translation of Rev.
I. M. Rod well (Lond., 1861) has the Suras arranged in chronological order. But the
recent translation by E. H. Palmer (vols. vi and ix of Muller’s Sacred Books of the
East) is undoubtedly the best English version.
58
INTRODUCTION TO
passages have the form and spirit of a bulletin of war.1 * In another he
seems to make an apology for taking to himself an additional wife.3
Another suggests a political manoeuvre. But, on the whole, the
Koran is a most tedious book to read. It is full of repetitions, and
seems incapable of happy translation into any other language. Its
crowning glory is its glowing Arabic diction. “Regarding it,” says
Palmer, “from a perfectly impartial and unbiassed standpoint, we
find that it expresses the thoughts and ideas of a Bedawi Arab
in Bedawi language and metaphor. The language is noble and
forcible, but it is not elegant in the sense of literary refinement.
To Mohammed’s hearers it must have been startling from the
manner in which it brought great truths home to them in the lan¬
guage of their everyday life.”3 Mohammed was wont to urge
that the marvellous excellence of his book was a standing proof
of its divine and superhuman origin. “If men and genii,” says
he, “united themselves together to bring the like of this Koran,
they could not bring the like, though they should back each
other up ! ” 4
The founder of Islam appears to have been from early life a
Life and claims contemplative soul. In the course of his travels as a
of Mohammed, merchant he probably often met and talked with Jews
and Christians. The Koran contains on almost every page some
allusion to Jewish history or Christian doctrine; but Mohammed’s
acquaintance with both Judaism and Christianity appears to have
been formed from oral sources, and was confused with many vague
and silly traditions. It should be observed, too, that at that period
an earnest seeker after truth, under circumstances like those which
tended chiefly to. fashion Mohammed’s mind and character, might
very easily have become bewildered by the various traditions of
the Jews and the foolish controversies of the Christians. The
Church was then distracted with controversy over the Trinity and
the use of images in worship. To Mohammed, a religion which
filled its churches with images of saints was no better than a gross
idolatry. His knowledge of Jesus was gathered largely from the
apocryphal gospels and through Jewish channels. Hence we may
understand the reason of the perverted form in which so many
Christian ideas are treated in the Koran.
Mohammed claimed to be the last of six great apostles who had
been sent upon divine missions into the world. Those six are
1 Sura iii, 135-145 ; viii, xl. Comp. Muir, Life of Mahomet, vol. iii, p. 224.
3 Sura xxxiii, 35—40 ; Ixvi.
* The Qur’an. Translated by E. H. Palmer. Introduction, p. lxxvii.
4 Koran, Sura xvii, 90.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
59
Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed. Nothing
specially new or original is to be found in the Moslem bible. It
has been maintained that “ Islam was little else than a republica¬
tion of Judaism, with such modifications as suited it to Arabian soil,
plus the important addition of the prophetic mission of Moham¬
med.” 1 The following passage from the fifth Sura well illustrates
the general style of the Koran:
[20] God’s is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth and what is
between the two; he created what he will, for God is mighty over all!
But the Jews and the Christians say, “ We are the sons of God and his
beloved.” Say, “Why then does he punish you for your sins?” nay, ye
are mortals of those whom he has created! He pardons whom he pleases,
and punishes whom he pleases; for God’s is the kingdom of the heavens
and the earth, .and what is between the two, and unto him the journey is.
O people of the book ! our apostle has come to you, explaining to you
the interval of apostles; lest ye say, “There came not to us a herald of
glad tidings nor a Warner.” But there has come to you now a herald of
glad tidings and a warner, and God is mighty over all!
When Moses said to his people, “O my people! remember the favour of
God toward you when he made among you prophets, and made for you
kings, and brought you what never was brought to any body in the
worlds. O my people! enter the holy laud which God has prescribed for
you; and be ye not thrust back upon your hinder parts and retreat losers.”
[25] They said, “O Moses! verily, therein is a people, giants; and we
will surely not enter therein until they go out from thence; but if they go
out then we will enter in.” Then said two men of those who fear, — God
had been gracious to them both, — “Enter ye upon them by the door, and
when ye have entered it, verily, ye shall be victorious; and upon God do
ye rely if ye be believers.” They said, “O Moses! we shall never enter it
so long as they are therein; so, go thou and thy Lord and fight ye twain;
verily, we will sit down here.” Said he, “My Lord, verily, I can control
only myself and my brother; therefore part us from these sinful people.”
He said, “Then, verily, it is forbidden them; for forty years shall they
wander about in the earth; so vex not thyself for the sinful people.”
[30] Recite to them the story of the two sons of Adam; truly when they
offered an offering and it was accepted from one of them, and was not
accepted from the other, that one said, “I will surely kill thee;” he said,
“God only accepts from those who fear. If thou dost stretch forth to me
thine hand to kill me, I will not stretch forth mine hand to kill thee;
verily, I fear God the Lord of the worlds; verily, I wish that thou mayest
draw upon thee my sin and thy sin, and be of the fellows of the fire, for
that is the reward of the unjust.” But his soul allowed him to slay his
brother, and he slew him, and in the morning he was of those who lose.
And God sent a crow to scratch in the earth and show him how he might
1 Mohammed and Mohammedanism. Lectures by It. Bosworth Smith, p. 143. New
York, 1875.
60
INTRODUCTION TO
hide his brother’s shame, he said, “Alas, for mel Am I too helpless to
become like this crow and hide my brother’s shame?” and in the morning
lie was of those who did repent.
[35] For this cause have we prescribed to the children of Israel that
whoso kills a soul, unless it be for another soul or for violence in the land,
it is as though he had killed men altogether; but whoso saves one, it is
as though he saved men altogether.1
The one hundred and twelfth Sura is held in special veneration
among the Mohammedans, and is popularly accounted equal in
value to a third part of the entire Koran. It is said to have been
revealed in answer to one who wished to know the distinguishing
attributes of Mohammed’s God. The following is Palmer’s
version:
In the name of the merciful and compassionate God
Say, He is God alone!
God the Eternal !
He begets not, and is not begotten !
Nor is there like unto him any one !
The following passage, from the beginning of the second Sura,
is to be understood as the words of the Angel Gabriel to Moham¬
med, and showing him the character and importance of the Koran:
That is the book! there is no doubt therein; a guide to the pious, who
believe in the unseen, and are steadfast in prayer, and of what we have
given them expend in alms; who believe in what is revealed to thee, and
what was revealed before thee, and of the hereafter they are sure. These
are in guidance from their Lord, and these are the prosperous. Verily,
those who misbelieve, it is the same to them if ye warn them or if ye warn
them not, they will not believe. God has set a seal upon their hearts and
on their hearing; and on their eyes is dimness, and for them is grievous
woe. And there are those among men who say, “We believe in God and
in the last day ; ” but they do not believe. They would deceive God and
those who do believe ; but they deceive only themselves and they do not
perceive. In their hearts is a sickness, and God has made them still more
sick, and for them is grievous woe because they lied. And when it is said
to them, “Do not evil in the earth,” they say, “We do but what is right.”
Are not they the evil doers ? and yet they do not perceive. And when it is
said to them, “Believe as other men believe,” tiiey say, “Shall we believe
as fools believe ? ” Are not they themselves the fools? and yet they do
not know. And when they meet those who believe, they say, “We do
believe;” but when they go aside with their devils, they say, “We are
with you ; we were but mocking! ” God shall mock at them and let them
go on in their rebellion, blindly wandering on.2
'Palmer’s translation, Part I., pp. 100-102.
2 Ibid., pp. 2, 3.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
61
The following, from the same Sura, is a specimen of the manner
in which Mohammed garbles and presents incidents of Israelitish
history:
Dost thou not look at the crowd of the children of Israel after Moses’
time, when they said to a prophet of theirs, “ Raise up for us a king, and
we will fight in God’s way? ” He said, ‘‘Will ye perhaps, if it be written
down for you to fight, refuse to fight ? ” They said, “And why should we
not fight in God’s way, now that we are dispossessed of our homes and
sons?” But when it was written down for them to fight they turned
back, save a few of them, and God knows who are evil doers. Then their
prophet said to them, “Verily, God has raised up for you Talut as a
king;” they said, “How can the kingdom be his over us; we have more
right to the kingdom than he, for he has not an amplitude of wealth? ”
He said, “Verily, God has chosen him over you, and has provided him
with an extent of knowledge and of form. God gives the kingdom unto
whom he will; God comprehends and knows.”
Then said to them their prophet, “ The sign of his kingdom is that there
shall come to you the ark with the shechinah in it from your Lord, and the
relics of what the family of Moses and the family of Aaron left ; the angels
shall bear it.” In that is surely a sign to you if ye believe.
Whatever opinion we may form of the Koran, or of Islam, it
must be conceded that the man, who, like Mohammed, in one
generation organized a race of savage tribes into a united people,
founded an empire which for more than a thousand years has
covered a territory as extensive as that of Rome in her proudest
days, and established a religion which to-day numbers over a
hundred million adherents, must have been an extraordinary char¬
acter, and his life and works must be worthy of careful philosophic
study. But it will also be conceded, by all competent to judge,
that, as a volume of sacred literature, the Koran is very deficient
in those elements of independence and originality which are notice¬
able in the sacred books of the other great religions of the world.
The strict Mohammedans regard every syllable of the Koran as of
a directly divine origin. “The divine revelation,” observes Muir,
“ was the cornerstone of Islam. The recital of a passage formed
an essential part of every celebration of public worship; and its
private perusal and repetition was enforced as a duty and a privi¬
lege, fraught with the richest religious merit. This is the uni¬
versal voice of early tradition, and may be gathered from the
revelation itself. The Koran was accordingly committed to
memory more or less by every adherent of Islam, and the extent
to which it could be recited was r'eckoned one of the chief dis¬
tinctions of nobility in the early Moslem empire. The custom of
62
INTRODUCTION TO
Arabia favoured the task. Passionately fond of poetry, yet pos¬
sessed of but limited means and skill in committing to writing the
effusions of their bards, the Arabs had long been habituated to
imprint them on the living tablets of their hearts. The recol¬
lective faculty was thus cultivated to the highest pitch; and it was
applied with all the ardour of an awakened Arab spirit to the
Koran. Several of Mohammed’s followers, according to early tra¬
dition, could, during his lifetime, repeat with scrupulous accuracy
the entire revelation.” 1
The Eddas.
Two ancient collections of Scandinavian poems and legends,
General char known as tlie Elder and the Younger Edda, embody the
acter of the mythology of the Teutonic tribes which settled in early
two Eddas. times in the sea-girt lands of Denmark, Sweden, and
Norway. From these tribes migrated also the ancient colonists of
Iceland. To these old Norsemen the Eddas hold a position corre¬
sponding to that of the Ved&s among the ancient Hindus, and the
Avesta among the Persians.
In the old Norse language the word Edda means ancestress, or
great-grandmother. Probably the poems and traditions so named
were long perpetuated orally by the venerable mothers, who repeated
them to their children and children’s children at the blazing fire¬
sides of those northern homes. The Elder Edda, often called the
Poetic Edda, consists of thirty-nine poems, and would nearly equal
in size the books of Psalms and Proverbs combined. The Younger
or Prose Edda is a collection of the myths of the Scandinavian
deities, and furnishes to some extent a commentary on the older
Edda, from the songs of which it quotes frequently. These inter¬
esting works were quite unknown to the learned world until the
latter part of the seventeenth century. But it appears that the
poems of the older Edda were collected about the beginning of the
twelfth century by Saemund Sigfusson, an Icelandic priest, who,
after pursuing classical and theological studies in the universities of
France and Germany, returned to Iceland and settled in a village at
the foot of Mount Hecla. Whether he collected these poems from
oral tradition, or from runic manuscripts or inscriptions, is uncertain.
A copy of this Edda on vellum, believed to date from the fourteenth
century, was found in Iceland by Bishop Sveinsson in 1643, and was
subsequently published under the title of The Edda of Saemund
the Learned.8 The prose Edda is ascribed to the celebrated Ice-
1 The Life of Mahomet, vol. i. Introduction, p. 5. London, 1861.
2 Edda Saemundar hins Froda, Copenhagen. 3 vols. 1787-1828. The third volume
contains the Lexicon Mythologicum of Finn Magnusson.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
63
The Voluspa.
landic historian, Snorri Sturlason (born 1178), who probably collect¬
ed its several parts from oral tradition and other sources. The first
copy known to Europeans was found by Jonsson in 1628, and the first
complete edition was published by Rask, at Stockholm, in 1818. 1
The first, aud perhaps oldest, poem of the Elder Edda is entitled
the Y oluspa, that is, the Song of the Prophetess. It
narrates in poetic form the creation of the universe
and of man, the origin of evil, and how death entered into the
world. It speaks of a future destruction and renovation of the
universe, and of the abodes of bliss and woe. The prophetess
thus begins her song:
1. All noble souls, yield me devout attention,
Ye high and low of Heimdall’s race,2
I will All Father’s works make known,
The oldest sayings which I call to mind.
2. Of giants eight was I first born,
They reared me up from ancient times;
Nine worlds I knowT, nine limbs I know
Of that strong trunk within the earth.3
3. In that far age when Ymir4 lived,
There was no sand, nor sea, nor saline wave;
Earth there was not, nor lofty heaven,
A yawning deep, but verdure none,
4. Until Bor’s sons the spheres upheaved,
And they the mighty Midgard* formed.
1 An English translation of the Poetic Edda was published by Benjamin Thorpe
(Two parts, London, 1866), but is now out of print. Comp. Icelandic Poetry, or the
Edda of Saemund translated into English verse by A. S. Cottle (Bristol, 1797). Many
fragments of the lays are given in Anderson’s Norse Mythology (Chicago, 1880).
An English translation of the Prose Edda is given in Blackwell’s edition of Mallet’s
Northern Antiquities (Bohn’s. Antiquarian Library). A new translation by R. B.
Anderson has been published at Chicago (1880). A very complete and convenient
German translation of both Eddas, with explanations by Karl Simrock, has passed
through many editions (seventh improved edition, Stuttgart, 1878).
2 Heimdall, according to the old Norse mythology, was the father and founder of
the different classes of men, nobles, churls, and thralls.
3 Referring to the great mundane ash-tree where the gods assemble every day in
council. This tree strikes its roots through all worlds, and is thus described in the
nineteenth verse of the Voluspa:
An ash I know named Yggdrasil,
A lofty tree wet with white mist,
Thence comes the dew which in the valleys falls ;
Ever green it stands o’er the Urdar-fount.
4 Ymir was the progenitor of the giants, and out of his body the world was created.
6 The Prose Edda explains that the earth is round without, and encircled by the
ocean, the outward shores of which were assigned to the race of giants. But around
04
INTRODUCTION TO
The southern sun shone on the cliffs
And green the ground became with plants.
5. The southern sun, the moon’s companion,
Held with right hand the steeds of heaven.
The sun knew not where she 1 might set,
The moon knew not what power he1 had,
The stars knew not where they might dwell.
6. Then went the Powers to judgment seats,
The gods most holy held a council,
To night and new moon gave they names,
They named the morning and the midday,
And evening, to arrange the times.2
Another very interesting poem is the Grimnis-mal, or Lay of
Grimner, in which we find a description of the twelve habitations
of heavenly deities, by which some scholars understand the twelve
signs of the zodiac. The sixth poem is called the Hava-mal, or
Sublime Lay. It is an ethical poem, embodying a considerable col¬
lection of ancient Norse proverbs. The following passages, from
Bishop Percy’s prose translation, are specimens :
1. Consider and examine well all your doors before you venture to stir
abroad : for he is exposed to continual danger, whose enemies lie in am¬
bush concealed in his court.
3. To the guest, who enters your dwelling with frozen knees, give the
warmth of your fire : he who hath travelled over the mountains hath need
of food, and well-dried garments.
4. Offer water to him who sits down at your table; for he hath occasion
to cleanse his hands: and entertain him honourably and kindly, if you
would win from him friendly words and a grateful return.
5. He who travelleth hath need of wisdom. One may do at home what¬
soever one will; but he who is ignorant of good manners will only draw
contempt upon himself, when he comes to sit down with men well instructed.
7. He who goes to a feast, where he is not expected, either speaks with
a lowly voice, or is silent; he listens with his ears, and is attentive with
his eyes; by this he acquires knowledge and wisdom.
8. Happy he, who draws upon himself the applause and benevolence of
men ! for whatever depends upon the will of others, is hazardous and un¬
certain.
a portion of the inland Odin, Yile, and Ve, the sons of Bor, raised a bulwark against
turbulent giants, and to the portion of the earth which it encircled they gave the name
of Midgard. For this structure, it is said, they used the eyebrows of Ymir, of his flesh
they formed the land, of his sweat and blood the seas, of his bones the mountains,
of his hair the trees, of his brains the clouds, and of his skull the vault of heaven.
See Mallet, Northern Antiquities, pp. 98, 405. Anderson, Norse Mythology, p. 175.
1 In the Norse language, sun is feminine and moon is masculine.
2 Translated from Simrock’s German version of the Voluspa.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
65
10. A man can carry with him no better provision for his journey than
the strength of understanding. In a foreign country this will be of more
use to him than treasures; and will introduce him to the table of strangers.
12-13. A man cannot carry a worse custom with him to a banquet than
that of drinking too much ; the more the drunkard swallows, the less is
his wisdom, till he loses his reason. The bird of oblivion sings before
those who inebriate themselves, and steals away their souls.1
We add a single extract from the Prose Edda, the account of the
formation of the first human pair :
One day, as the sons of Bor were walking along the sea-beach they found
two stems of wood, out of which they shaped a man and a woman. The
first (Odin) infused into them life and spirit; the second (Yile) endowed
them with reason and the power of motion; the third (Ye) gave them
speech and features, hearing and vision. The man they called Ask, and
the woman, Embla. From these two descend the whole human race, whose
assigned dwelling was within Midgard. Then the sons of Bor built in the
middle of the universe the city called Asgard, where dwell the gods and
their kindred, and from that abode work out so many wondrous things,
both on the earth and in the heavens above it. There is in that city a place
called Hlidskjalf, and when Odin is seated there on his lofty throne he sees
over the whole world, discerns all the actions of men, and comprehends
whatever he contemplates. His wife is Frigga, the daughter of Fjorgyn,
and they and their offspring form the race that we call the iEsir, a race
that dwells in Asgard the old, and the regions around it, and that we know
to be entirely divine. Wherefore Odin may justly be called All-Father, for
he is verily the father of all, of gods as well as of men, and to his power
all things owe their existence. Earth is his daughter and his wife, and
with her he had his first-born son, Asa-Thor, who is endowed with strength
and valour, and therefore quelleth he everything that hath life.3
In all the voluminous literature of the Greeks and the Romans
we find no single work or collection of writings analogous to the
above-named sacred books.3 It would not be difficult to compile
from Greek and Roman poets and philosophers a body of sacred
literature which would compare favourably with that of any of the
Gentile nations. But such a compilation would have, as a volume,
no recognized authority or national significance. The books we
have described, like our own Bible, have had a historical develop¬
ment, and a distinct place in the religious culture of great nations.
1 See the whole poem as translated by Thorpe in Anderson’s Norse Mythology, pp.
130-155, and the mysterious Runic section on pp. 254-259.
8 Blackwell’s translation, in Mallet, Northern Antiquities, pp. 405, 406.
8 Whatever may have been the nature and contents of the old Sibylline Books,
which were kept in the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus at Rome, they perished long
ago, and their real character and use are now purely matters of conjecture.
5
G6
INTRODUCTION TO
The Koran, the Avesta, the Pitakas, and the Chinese classics em¬
body the precepts and laws which have been a rule of faith to mill¬
ions. The vedic hymns and the Egyptian ritual have directed the
devotions of countless generations of earnest worshippers. They
are, therefore, to be accounted sacred books, and are invaluable for
the study of history and of comparative theology.1
In forming a proper estimate of these bibles of the nations, we
^ v , must take each one as a whole. In the brief citations
These hooks
must be studied we have given above, the reader can only learn the
as a whole. general tone and spirit of the best portions of the sev¬
eral books. The larger part of all of them is filled with either un¬
trustworthy legends, or grotesque fancies and vague speculations.
They abound in polytheistic superstitions, incomprehensible meta¬
physics, and mythological tales. But, doubtless, back of all this
mass of accumulated song and superstition and legend, there was
once a foundation of comparatively pure worship and belief. Even
Mohammed, whose life and works stand out in the light of reliable
history, appears to have been, at the beginning of his career, an
earnest seeker after truth and a zealous reformer. But afterward
the pride of power and numerous victories warped his moral integ¬
rity, and later portions of the Koran are apologies for his crimes.
It is difficult to see what logical connexion the superstitions of
modern Taoism have with the teachings of Laotzse. In fact, the
original documents and ideas of most of the great religions of the
East appear to have become lost in the midst of the accretions of
later times. Especially is this true of Brahmanism and Buddhism.
Who can now certainly declare what were the very words of Bud¬
dha? The Tripitaka is an uncertain guide. It is much as if the
apocryphal gospels, the legends of anchorites and monks and mys¬
tics, and the dreams of the schoolmen, were all strung together,
and intermingled with the words and works of Jesus. Roman
Catholicism is itself a gross corruption and caricature of the religion
of Jesus Christ; and were it the sole representative of the Gospel
in the world to-day it would be a striking analogue of Buddhism.
Could we go back to the true historical starting point of the great
religions, we would, perhaps, find them all, in one form and another,
1 The Holy Scriptures of the Sikhs, a politico-religious sect of India, constitute a
volume full of interest, and equal in size to the Old Testament. It is commonly
known as the Granth. But it is a late work, compiled about A. D. 1500, and has no
national or historical value to entitle it to a place among the bibles of the nations. It
has been translated into English, and published at the expense of the British Govern¬
ment for India. See The Adi Granth, or the Holy Scriptures of the Sikhs, translated
from the original Gurmukhi, with Introductory Essays, by Dr. Ernest Thrumpp.
Bond., 1877.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
67
connected with some great patriarchal Jethro, or Melchizedek,
whose name and genealogy are now alike lost to mankind.
It will not do to take up the various bibles of the world, and,
having selected choice extracts from them all, compare such selec¬
tions alone with similar extracts from the Christian and Jewish
Scriptures. These latter, we doubt not, can furnish more exquisite
passages than all the others combined. But such comparison of
choice excerpts is no real test. Each bible must be taken as an
organic whole, and viewed in its historical and national Notabiesuperi-
relations. Then will it be seen, as one crowning glory ority of the 0Id
of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, that tament^scrijK
they are the carefully preserved productions of some tures*
sixteen centuries, self-verifying in their historical relations, and
completed and divinely sanctioned by the Founder of Christian¬
ity and his apostles in the most critical and cultivated age of
the Roman Empire. All attempts to resolve these sacred books
into myths and legends have proved signal failures. The Hebrew
people were notably a peculiar people, and their national history
stands out in the clear light of trustworthy testimony. They were
placed, geographically, in the very center of the great historic
empires of Egypt, Asia, and Europe; and the accuracy of their
sacred' records is confirmed by the records of these empires. Most
notable is the fact, moreover, that the languages in which the
several parts of the sacred canon were written ceased to be living
tongues about the time when those several parts obtained canonical
authority; and thereby these sacred books were crystallized into
imperishable form, and have become historical and linguistic mon¬
uments of their own genuineness. We are, furthermore, confident
in the assertion that the Holy Scriptures are not only singularly
free from the superstitions and follies that abound in the sacred
books of other nations, but also that they contain in substance the
inculcation of every excellence and virtue to be found in all the
others. Thus in their entirety they are incomparably superior to
all other sacred books.1
But, taken in parts, the Bible will still maintain a marvellous
superiority. Where, in all other literature, will be found a moral
code comparable, for substance and historical presentation, with the
Sinaitic decalogue ? Where else is there such a golden sum-
1 “ It cannot be too strongly stated,” says Max Muller, “ that the chief, and in many
cases the only, interest of the Sacred Books of the East is historical ; that much in
them is extremely childish, tedious, if not repulsive ; and that no one but the historian
will be able to understand the important lessons which they teach.” Sacred Books of
the East, vol. i, p. xliii.
68
INTRODUCTION TO
mary of all law and revelation as the first and second command¬
ments of the Saviour? The religious lessons of the Bible are
set in a historical background of national life and personal experi¬
ence; and largely in biographical sketches true to all the phases of
human character.1 Let the diligent student go patiently and care¬
fully through all rival scriptures; let him memorize the noblest
vedic hymns, and study the Tripitaka with all the enthusiasm of an
Edwin Arnold; let him search the Confucian classics, and the Tau-
teh-king of Laotsze, and the sacred books of Persia, Assyria, and
Babylon; let him devoutly peruse Egyptian ritual, Moslem Koran,
and Scandinavian Eddas; he yet will find in the Psalms of David a
beauty and purity infinitely superior to any thing in the Vedas;
in the gospels of Jesus a glory and splendour eclipsing the boasted
“Light of Asia;” and in the laws of Moses and the Proverbs
of Solomon lessons of moral and political wisdom far in advance
of any thing that Laotsze and Confucius offer. By such study
and comparisons it will be seen, as not before, how, as a body of
laws, history, poetry, prophecy, and religious records, the Bible is
most emphatically the Book of books, and, above all other books
combined, “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for
instruction in righteousness.” Such study will dissipate the notion
that Christianity is equivalent to general goodness, and that the
Bible is an accident of human history; for it will be seen that the
Gospel system essentially excludes all other religions, and evinces
a divine right to supersede them all. The written records of other
faiths are of the earth and earthy; the Bible is a heavenly gift, in
language and history wonderfully prepared, and accompanied by
manifold evidences of being the revelation of God. To devotees
of other religions the Christian may truly say, in the words of the
Lord Jesus (John iv, 22): “Ye worship what ye know not, we wor¬
ship what we know, for the salvation is from the Jews.”
1 Tayler Lewis observes : “ Every other assumed revelation has been addressed to
but one phase of humanity. They have been adapted to one age, to one people, or
one peculiar style of human thought. Their books have never assumed a cosmical
character, or been capable of any catholic expansion. They could never be ac¬
commodated to other ages, or acclimated to other parts of the world. They are indig¬
enous plants that can never grow out of the zone that gave them birth. Zoroaster
never made a disciple beyond Persia, or its immediate neighborhood ; Confucius is
wholly Chinese, as Socrates is wholly Greek.” The Divine Human in the Scripture,
p. 133. New York, 1869.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
69
CHAPTER III.
LANGUAGES OF THE BIBLE.
A thorough acquaintance with the genius and grammatical struc¬
ture of the original languages of the Bible is essen- Acquaintance
tially the basis of all sound interpretation. A transla- with the orig"
tion, however faithful, is itself an interpretation, and of scripture the
cannot be safely made a substitute for original and in- ^ ofintea“
dependent investigation. As an introduction, there- pretation.
fore, to Biblical Hermeneutics, it is of the first importance that we
have a knowledge of those ancient tongues in which the sacred
oracles were written. It is important, also, that we make our¬
selves familiar with the general principles of linguistic science, the
growth of families of languages, and the historical position, as well
as the most marked characteristics, of the sacred tongues.
Origin and Growth of Languages.
The origin of human speech has been a fruitful theme of specu¬
lation and controversy. One’s theory on the subject is origin of ian-
likely to be governed by his theory of the origin of f?uase.
man. If we adopt the theory of evolution, according to which
man has been gradually developed, by some process of natural
selection, from lower forms of animal life, we will very naturally
conclude that language is a human invention, constructed by slow
degrees to meet the necessities and conditions of life. If, on the
other hand, we hold that man was first introduced on earth by a
miraculous creation, and was made at the beginning a perfect
specimen of his kind, we will very naturally conclude that the
beginnings of human language were of supernatural origin.
Several theories have been advanced to show that language may
have had a human origin. According to one theory, various tueo-
maintained by several eminent philologists, such as ries-
K. W. L. Heyse, H. Steinthal, and Max Muller, man was originally
endowed with a creative faculty which spontaneously gave a name
to each distinct conception as it first thrilled through his brain.
There was originally such a sympathy between soul and body, and
such a dependence of the one upon the other, that every object,
70
INTRODUCTION TO
which in any way affected the senses, produced a corresponding
The Automatic echo in the soul, and found automatic expression
Theory. through the vocal organs. As gold, tin, wood, and
stone have each a different ring or sound when struck, so the
different sensations and perceptions of man’s soul rang out articu¬
late sounds whenever they were impressed by objects from without
or intuitions from within. This may properly be called the auto¬
matic theory of the origin of speech. Others adopt a theory
The Onomato- which may be called onomatopoetic. It traces the
poetic Theory, origin of words to an imitation of natural sounds.
Animals, according to this theory, would receive names corre¬
sponding to their natural utterances. The noises caused by the
winds and waters would suggest names for these objects of nature,
The interjec- and in this way a few simple words would come to
tionai Theory, form the germs of the first language. Then, again,
there is the interjectional theory, which seeks for the radical ele¬
ments of language in the sudden ejaculations of excited passion
or desire.
Against all these theories strong arguments may be urged. In-
objections to terjections and onomatopoetic words are in every lan-
these theories, guage comparatively few, and can in no proper sense
be regarded as the radical elements of speech. “ Language begins
where interjections end.” The two theories last named will ac¬
count for the origin of many words in all languages, but not for
the origin of language itself. The automatic theory assumes too
materialistic and mechanical a notion of language-making to com¬
mand general acceptance. It has been nicknamed the ding-dong
theory, for it resolves the first men into bells, mechanically ringing
forth vocal sounds, and, as Whitney has humorously added, like
other bells they rang by the tongue. But Mtiller, on the other
hand, rejects both the other theories, and stigmatizes the onomato¬
poetic as the bow-wow theory, and the interjectional as the pooh-
pooh theory. Thus the most eminent philologists reject and spurn
each other’s theories.
Whitney has argued that, since nineteen-twentieths of our speech
is manifestly of human origin, it is but reasonable to suppose that
the other twentieth originated in the same way.1 But such an
argument cannot be allowed, for it is precisely with this unknown
twentieth that all the difficulty lies. Nor is it really so much the
twentieth as the one thousandth part. We can readily trace the
causes and methods by which languages have been multiplied and
changed, but how the first man began to speak — not merely utter
1 Language and the Study of Language, p. 400.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
71
articulate sounds, but frame sentences and communicate ideas — is
quite another question. Necessity may have compelled him to
make clothing, build houses, and fabricate implements of art ; but
in all such cases he somewhere found the raw material at hand.
He did not- originate the clay and the trees and the stones. But
the origin of human language seems, from the nature of the case,
to involve the creation of the material as well as the putting it
in form.
If we believe that man was originally created upright, with all
his natural faculties complete, a most obvious corollary 0rigin pr0babiy
is, that language was directly imparted to him by his supernatural.
Creator. He learned his first mode of speech from God, or from
angelic beings, whom God commissioned to instruct him. Perhaps
the original creation involved with it a power in the first man to
speak spontaneously. He named whatever he would name as in¬
tuitively as the bird builds its nest, and as naturally as the first bud
put forth its inflorescence; but, unlike bird and bud, his original
power for speaking was a conscious capability of the soul, and not,
as the automatic theory assumes, a peculiarity of the vocal organs.
Language is not an accident of human nature; else might it utterly
perish like other arts and inventions of man. It is an essential ele¬
ment of man’s being, and one which ever distinguishes him from
the brute. Nor is it ingenuous or honourable in linguists to ignore
the statements of Scripture on this subject. The account of Adam
naming the creatures brought to him (Gen. ii, 19) is manifestly
one illustration of his first use of language. Perfect and vigorous
from the start, his faculty of language, as a native law, sponta¬
neously gave names to the objects presented to his gaze. This
exercise seems not to have taken place until after he had held in¬
tercourse with God (verses 16, 17), but the whole account of his
creation and primitive state implies that his power of speech, and
its first exercise, were among the mysterious facts of his supernat¬
ural origin.
The confusion of tongues, narrated in the eleventh chapter of
Genesis, may be an important factor in accounting for Tbe etmfusl01|
the great multitude and diversity of human languages, of tongues at
The plain import of that narrative is, that, by a direct
judgment-stroke of the Almighty, the consciousness of men became
confused, and their speech discordant. And this confusion of
speech is set forth as the occasion, not the result, of their being
scattered abroad over all the earth. Whatever language had been
used before that event, it probably went out of existence then or
became greatly modified, and any attempt now to determine abso-
72
INTRODUCTION TO
lutely the original language of mankind, would be as great a folly
as the building of the tower of Babel.1
But modern philological research has contributed greatly to our
f tionand knowledge of the changes, growth, and classification of
growth of new the languages of men. We, who read and speak the
languages. English language of to-day, know that it is very differ-
ent from the English language of three hundred years ago. We
go back to the time of Chaucer, and find what seems almost another
language. Go back to the Norman Conquest, and it requires as
much study to understand the Anglo-Saxon of that period as to
understand German or French. The reason of these changes is
traceable to the introduction of new words, new customs, and new
ideas by the Norman Conquest and the stern measures of William
the Conqueror. A new civilization was introduced by him into
England, and, since his day, constant changes have been going on
by reason of commerce with other peoples and the manifold re¬
searches and pursuits of men. New inventions have, within one
hundred years, introduced more than a thousand new words into
our language.
Then, also, local changes occur, and the common people of one
Section of a country acquire a different dialect from those of another
section. In Great Britain different dialects distinguish the people
of different localities, and yet they all speak English, and can read¬
ily understand one another. In the United States we have modes
of speech peculiar to New England, others peculiar to the South,
and others to the West. But think of a community or colony mi¬
grating to a distant region and becoming utterly shut off from their
fatherland. New scenes and pursuits in course of time obliterate
much of the language of their former life. Their children know
little or nothing of the old country. Each new generation adds
new words and customs, until they come to use virtually a different
language. Many old words will be retained, but they are pro¬
nounced differently, and are combined in new forms of expression,
until we can scarcely trace their etymology. Under such circum¬
stances it would require but a few generations to bring into exis¬
tence a new language. The English language has more than eighty
thousand words; but Shakspeare uses only fifteen thousand, and
Milton less than ten thousand. How small a part of the language,
then, would be necessary to a band of unlearned emigrants settling
in a new country. The American Indians have a language for
1 A prevalent opinion among Jews and Christians has been that the original lan¬
guage was Hebrew. This opinion is due mainly to a feeling of reverence for that sa¬
cred tongue.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS. 73
every tribe, and with no literature, or schools, or civil government,
their languages are constantly changing, and in some places with
marvellous rapidity.
Thus wre may see how the dispersion and separation of peoples
and tribes originate new languages. “If the tribes of men,” says
Whitney, “ are of different parentage, their languages could not be
expected to be more unlike than they are; while, on the other
hand, if all mankind are of one blood, their tongues need not be
more alike than we actually find them to be.” 1
Fiom our own nation and standpoint we take a hasty glance
back over the history of some five thousand years, and FamiiieSofian-
notice some of the great families of languages as they guages.
have been traced and classified by modern comparative philology.
Our English is only one of a vast group of tongues which bear
unmistakable marks of a common origin. We trace it back to the
Anglo-Saxon of a thousand years ago. We find it akin to the
German, Dutch, Swedish, Danish, Icelandic, Russian, and Polish,
and each of these, like the English, has a history of changes pecul¬
iar to itself. All these form but one family of languages, and all
their differences are to be explained by migration, diversity of in¬
terests, habits, customs, pursuits, natural scenery, climate, religion,
and other like causes. Manifestly, all these nations were anciently
one people. But this whole group, called the Germanic, is but one
branch of a greater and more extended family. The Italian,
French, Spanish, and Portuguese form another branch, and are
easily traced back to the Latin, the classic language of indo-European
the old Roman Empire. The Greek, again, is but an family,
older sister of the Latin, and its superior literature, its wrealth of
forms and harmony, has placed it first among the so-called “ learned
tongues.” Passing eastward we discover many traces of the same
family likeness in the Armenian, the Persian, and the Zend, and
also in the Pali, the Prakrit, and other tongues of India. All these
are found closely related to the ancient Sanskrit, the language of
the Yedas, an older sister, though seeming like a mother, of the
rest. All these languages are traceable to a common origin, and
form one great family, which is appropriately called the Indo-
European.
Another family, less marked in affinity, is scattered over Northern
and Central Europe and Asia, and contains the lan¬
guages of the Laplanders, the Finns, the Hungarians,
and the Turks in Europe. Scholars differ as to the more appro¬
priate name for this family, calling it either Scythia#, Turanian, or
1 Language and the Study of Language, p. 394.
Scythian.
74
INTRODUCTION TO
Altaic. Still different from these are the languages of China and
Japan, and the numberless dialects of the uncivilized tribes of
America, of Africa, and of the islands of the Pacific.
Different from all the above, and forming a well-defined and
The Semitic closely related family, is that known as the Semitic, so
group. called from Noah’s famous son, from whom the Chaldee,
the Hebrew, and Arabian races are believed to have sprung.1
Here belong the Hebrew, the Punic or Phoenician, the Syriac and
Chaldee, the cuneiform of many of the Assyrian and Babylonian
monuments, the Arabic and the Ethiopic. These languages, as a
group, are remarkable for the comparatively large number of stem-
words, or roots, common to them all. The nations which used
them were confined in geographical territory mainly to Western
Asia, spreading from the Euphrates and Tigris on the east to the
Mediterranean and the borders of Egypt on the west. Phoenician
enterprise and commerce carried the Punic language westward
into some of the islands of the Mediterranean, and along the
Carthaginian coast ; and the Ethiopic spread into
Egypt and Abyssinia. The Ethiopic, or Geez, is an
offshoot of the Arabic, and is closely akin to the Himyaritic and
the Amharic, which latter is now the most widely spoken dialect
of Abyssinia. The Arabic is still a living language
spoken by millions of people in Western Asia, and
contains vast libraries of poetry and philosophy, history and fable,
science and religion. The Phoenician language has al¬
most entirely perished, a few inscriptions and frag¬
ments only remaining. The cuneiform inscriptions of the Assyrian
and Babylonian monuments have, in recent years, been
yielding to scholarly research, and are found to contain
many important annals and proclamations of ancient kings, and
also works of science and of art. The language of many of the
monuments is found to be Semitic, and its further decipherment
and study will doubtless shed much light upon the history and
civilization of the ancient empires of Nineveh and Babylon.
The Syriac and Chaldee are two dialects of what is properly
called the Aramaic language. This language prevailed among the
1 The name Semitic is not an exact designation, for, according to Genesis x, only two
of Shem’s sons, Arphaxad and Aram, begat nations which are known to have used this
speech, while three of his sons, Elam, Asshur, and Lud, were the progenitors of na¬
tions which, perhaps, used other languages. On the other hand, two of the sons of
Ham — Cush and Canaan — were fathers of Semitic-speaking peoples. Hupfeld has
proposed the name “ Hither- Asiatic,” and Renan “ Syro-Arabic,” but these names
have not commanded any general following, and the name Semitic has now become
so fixed in usage that it will, probably, not be displaced by any other.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
75
peoples about Damascus, and thence eastward as far as Babylon.
The Chaldee is represented in several chapters of the
Books of Ezra and Daniel, and also in the Jewish Tar- Aramalc-
gums or paraphrases of the Old Testament. It prevailed in Baby¬
lon at the time of the Jewish exile, and was there appropriated by
the J ewish people, with whom it was vernacular in Palestine in the
time of our Lord. The Samaritan is an offshoot of this language,
though mixed with many foreign elements. The Syriac dialect
appears to have been a western outgrowth and development of the
Chaldee, and it is sometimes called the western Aramaic, as dis¬
tinguished from the eastern Aramaic, or Chaldsean. At the begin¬
ning of the Christian era it prevailed through all the region north
and east of Palestine, known as Syria or Aram, and its existing
literature is principally Christian. Its oldest monument of note is
the Peshito version of the Scriptures, which is usually referred to
the second century; but its most flourishing period extended from
the fourth to the ninth century. It is still the sacred language of
the scattered Christian communities of Syria, and by some of them
is still spoken, though in a very corrupt form.
Central and pre-eminent among all these Semitic tongues is the
ancient Hebrew, which embodies the magnificent liter¬
ature of one of the oldest and most important nations
of the earth. The great father of this nation was Abram, who
migrated from the land of the Chaldieans, crossed the Euphrates,
and entered Canaan with the assurance that the land should be
given to him and his posterity. How closely his dialect at that
time resembled the language of the Canaanites we have no means
of knowing, but that he and his family abandoned their own dia¬
lect, and adopted that of the Canaanites, is in the highest degree
improbable. The Hebrews and the Canaanites appear to have
used substantially the same dialect. During the centuries of the
Hebrews’ residence in Egypt, and the forty years in the peninsula
of Sinai, the Hebrew language acquired a form and character
which thereafter underwent no essential change until after the
time of the Babylonian exile — a period of more than a thousand
years.1
Having thus glanced oyer the scattered nations and languages of
men, we are enabled to mark the relative national and Geographical
historical position of the Hebrew tongue. Central position^oTThe
among the great nations of the earth; placed in the Hebrew,
midst of the great highway of intercourse betw.een the world-
powers of the East and the West, the Hebrew people may be
^omp. Gesenius, Geschichte dev heb. Sprache und Schrift. Lpz., 1816.
76
INTRODUCTION TO
shown to have had, in many ways, a providential mission to all
nations. Having traced the spread and outgrowth of the principal
families of languages, and noticed the principles and methods by
which new languages and dialects are formed, we are prepared to
investigate more intelligently the special character and genius of
the so-called sacred tongues.
CHAPTER IV.
THE HEBREW LANGUAGE.
The Hebrew language takes its name from the Hebrew nation,
whose immortal literature it preserves. The word first appears in
Genesis xiv, 13, where Abram is called “the Hebrew.” In Gen.
xxxix, 14, 17, Joseph, the great-grandson of Abraham, is so called,
and he himself speaks (chap, xl, 15) of Canaan as “the land of the
Hebrews.”1 Thenceforth the name is frequently applied to the
. * descendants of Jacob. Two different derivations of the
Derivation of
the name He- name have been proposed, between which it is difficult
to decide. One makes it an appellative noun from
beyond / applied to Abram because he came from beyond the Eu¬
phrates. Thus the name would follow the analogy of such words
as Transylvania, Transalpine, Transatlantic. But such a designa¬
tion would scarcely be applied to one who came from beyond the
river rather than to those who continued beyond, and there is no
evidence that the Trans-Euphrateans were ever so designated.
Nevertheless, this derivation is maintained by many distinguished
scholars, and there is no insuperable objection to it. Another, and,
philologically, more natural derivation, is that which makes the
word a patronymic from JEber , the great-grandson of Shem,
and ancestor of Abraham. Thus in Gen. jriv, 13, where the name
first occurs, Abram is called '"liiyn, the Eberite , or Hebrew, in con¬
trast with Mamre, 'HftNn, the Amorite. This is in thorough anal-
ogy with the regular form of Hebrew patronymics, and has in its
1 “ This name is never in Scripture applied to the Israelites except when the speaker
is a foreigner (Gen. xxxix, 14, 17; xli, 12; Exod. i, 15; ii, 6; 1 Sam. iv, 6, 9, etc.),
or when Israelites speak of themselves to one of another nation (Gen. xl, 15 ; Exod.
i, 19; Jonah i, 9, etc.), or when they are contrasted with other peoples (Gen. xliii, 32;
Exod. i, 3, 7, 15; Deut. xv, 12; 1 Sam. xiii, 3, 7).” See Kitto, Cyc. of Bib. Litera¬
ture, article Hebrew.
77
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
favour the peculiar statement of Gen. x, 21, that Shem was the
“ father of all the sons of Eber.” This manifestly gives to Eber a
notable prominence among the descendants of Shem, and may, for
divers reasons now unknown, have given to Abraham, and to his
descendants through Jacob, the name of Eberites, or Hebrews.
Accordingly, while either of these derivations is possible, that
which makes it a patronymic from Eber seems to be least open to
objection, and best supported by linguistic usage and analogy.1
The Hebrew language, preserved in the books of the Old Testa¬
ment, may therefore be regarded as the national speech of the
Eberites, of whom the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
became the most distinguished representatives. In the later times
of the Hebrew monarchy it was called Judaic (rpTrp, 2 Kings
xviii, 26), because the kingdom of Judah had then become the great
representative of the Hebrew race. When Abram, the Hebrew,
(Gen. xiv, 13) entered the land of Canaan, he probably found his
ancestral language already spoken there, for the Canaanites had
migrated thither before him (Gen. xii, 6). It is notable that in all
the intercourse of Abram, Isaac, and Jacob with the Canaanitish
tribes, no allusion is ever made to any differences in their language,
and the proper names among the Canaanites are traceable to He¬
brew roots. One hundred and seventy years after the migration of
Abram, his grandson Jacob used a form of speech different from
that of his uncle Laban the Syrian (Gen. xxxi, 47), and it is not
improbable that Laban’s dialect had undergone more changes than
that of the sons of Abram.2
1 Is it not possible that Eber may have been the last great Semitic patriarch living
at the time of the confusion of tongues (see Gen. x, 25), and that he and his family
may have retained more neai-ly than any others the primitive language of mankind,
and transmitted it through Peleg, Reu, Serug, and Nahor, to the generations of Terah
(comp. Gen. xi, 17-27)? This supposition is not necessarily invalidated by the fact
that Aramaeans, Cushites, and Canaanites used the same Semitic speech, for these
tribes may, at an early date, have appropriated the language of the Eberites.
2 It is commonly asserted that Abram used the Chaldee language when he first en¬
tered Canaan, but there gradually lost its use, 'and adopted the speech of his heathen
neighbours. This supposition, however, is without any solid foundation. The fact
incidentally mentioned in Gen. xxxi, 47, is no valid evidence in the case. It merely
shows that Laban and Jacob used different dialects, and leaves the question entirely
open whether it were Jacob’s or Laban’s dialect which had most changed subsequent¬
ly to the migration from Ur of the Chaldees (Gen. xi, 31). Abram’s separateness
from other tribes favours the idea that his language and that of his children Isaac
and Jacob would be less likely to undergo change than that of Laban, whose idolatrous
use of Teraphim (Gen. xxxi, 19, 30) indicates in him a cleaving to heathenish prac¬
tices. The language of the Chaldees at the period of Terah’s removal may have re¬
sembled the Hebrew much more closely than the later Aramaic. The question is not
78
INTRODUCTION TO
When a person with whom the English or any other Indo-Euro¬
pean language is vernacular, comes for the first time to investigate.
Semitic modes of speech, he finds that he is entering
Peculiarities of . 1 . , , . , , T
the Hebrew into a new and strange world ot thought. In some -
tongue. things he meets the exact reverse of all with which he
has become familiar in his own language. The written page reads
from right to left ; the volume from the end toward the beginning ;
every letter is a consonant, and represents some object of sense cor¬
responding to the meaning of its name.
The Hebrew alphabet consists of twenty-two letters, and the
written characters now in use, commonly called the
The letters. gquare letters, are found in the oldest existing manu¬
scripts of the Bible. But these characters are probably not older
than the beginning of the Christian era, inasmuch as the Asmonean
coins do not use them, but employ an alphabet closely resembling
that of the Phoenician coins and inscriptions.1 The oldest monu¬
ments of Hebrew writing are some coins of the Maccabaean prince
Simon (about B. C. 140), a number of gems containing names, and
probably used for seals, and the famous inscription of Mesha, king
of Moab (about B. C. 900), recently discovered among the ruins of
the ancient Dibon on the east of the Jordan. The names of the
letters are all significant, and their original form was, without
doubt, designed to resemble the object denoted by the name. Thus
the name of the first letter, cdeph , X, means an ox, and it is believed
that some resemblance of an ox’s head may be discerned in the old
Phoenician form of this letter ( A£l). The third letter, gimel , J,
means a camel, and in its ancient Phoenician ('"“T ^\) and Ethiopic
(^) forms, somewhat resembles the head and neck of the camel.
According t<» Gesenius, the earliest form {^/) represented the
camel’s hump. The name of the letter dcileth , *7, means a door, and
the ancient form or /\f (Greek A), resembles the door of a tent.2
whether the Canaanites adopted Abram’s language after his migration, as Bleek as¬
sumes (Introd., vol. i, p. 66), but whether Abram and his father’s house, the Eberites,
may not have spoken, at the time of their westward migration, substantially the same
language as that of the Canaanites. How long the Canaanites had been in the land
before Abram came is uncertain (comp. Gen. x, 1 8 ; xii, 6), but perhaps not long
enough to have undergone notable changes in their speech.
1 The square character is spoken of in the Talmud as the Assyrian writing, and is
said to have been brought from the East by Ezra ■when he returned from the Baby¬
lonian exile ; but this tradition, for the reasons given above, is not entitled to credit.
2 See the whole alphabet similarly exhibited in Smith’s Diet, of the Bible, under
article Writing. See also the Ancient Semitic Alphabets as exhibited in Gesenius’
Hebrew Grammar, and the Ancient Alphabets as given at the end of Webster’s Un¬
abridged Dictionary.
BTBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
Tfl
These forms, moreover, are probably abbreviations and modifica¬
tions of still more ancient ones, which, like the hieroglyphics of
Egypt, were real pictures or outlines of visible things.1
Among the letters, the four gutturals X, n, n, and V have a not¬
able prominence, and give distinction to the conjugation
of many verbs. Incapable of being doubled, they greatly Gutturals-
affect the vowel system, and the first two (N and n) represent
scarcely audible breathings in the throat, and are frequently alto¬
gether quiescent. The two letters waw (I, commonly called vav )
and yodh (') are also frequently quiescent, and may be called the
two vowel letters of the ancient Hebrew. They seem, as a rule, to
have been employed only when the sounds which they represent
were long. With the exception of these two letters the ancient
written Hebrew seems to have had no vowel signs. The same com¬
bination of letters might signify several different things, according
to the pronunciation received. The indefiniteness of such a mode
of writing compares very unfavourably with the ample supply of
vowel letters in the Indo-European tongues, and nothing but a
familiar acquaintance with the usage of the language as a living
tongue could supply this defect.2
The Masoretic system of vowel signs, or points, is a comparative¬
ly modern invention, prepared to meet a real necessity Masoretic vow-
when the Hebrew had ceased to be a living language, ei system.
“ Of the date of this punctuation of the Old Testament text,” ob¬
serves Gesenius, “ we have no historical account ; but a comparison
of historical facts warrants the conclusion that the present vowel
system was not completed till the seventh century after Christ; and
that it was done by Jewish scholars, well versed in the language,
who, it is highly probable, copied the example of the Syriac, and
perhaps also of the Arabic, grammarians. This vowel system has,
probably, for its basis the pronunciation of the Jews of Palestine;
and its consistency, as well as the analogy of the kindred languages,
furnishes strong proof of its correctness, at least as a whole. We
may, however, assume that it exhibits not so much the pronun¬
ciation of common life as the formal style, which, in the seventh
century after Christ, was sanctioned by tradition and custom in
reading the Scriptures in the schools and synagogues. Its authors
laboured with great care to represent by signs the minute grada-
1 Comp. Bottcher, Ausfiihrliches Lehrbuch der hebraischen Sprache, vol. i, pp. 65, 66.
2 “ A Semitic root,” says Bopp, “ is unpronounceable, because, in giving it vowels,
an advance is made to a special grammatical form, and it then no longer possesses
the simple peculiarity of a root raised above all grammar.” Comparative Grammar,
vol. i, p. 108 ; Eng. Trans., p. 98.
80
INTRODUCTION TO
tions of the vowel sounds, marking even half vowels and help¬
ing sounds, spontaneously adopted in all languages, yet seldom
expressed in writing.” 1
The ancient Hebrew writing being, accordingly, expressed al¬
together by consonants, the vowel sounds were quite subordinate
to them, and formed no conspicuous element of the language.
Words and names are exhibited by consonants, to which alone
significations may be traced, but relations of thought, modifications
of the sense of words, and grammatical inflection, were denoted by
vowel sounds.
One of the most marked features of the language is the tri-
The three-let- literal root of all its verbs. This peculiarity is a fun-
ter root. damental characteristic of all the Semitic tongues.
No satisfactory reason for its existence, or account of its origin,
has yet been produced, though a vast amount of study and research
has been expended on the subject. Some have maintained that
this triplicity of radical consonants is the result of a philological
and historical development. Indications of this are found in mon¬
osyllabic nouns (like 3K, DK, D1, "in, T), and verbs which double one
of their letters (33^>, 33D, nnB>), and also in those verbs in which one
of the consonants is so weak and servile as to suggest that, origi¬
nally, it was no radical element of the word (|n or p, ZHL3, ma).
Hence the doctrine of a primitive system of two-letter roots has
been advanced and defended with great learning and ingenuity.
But no satisfactory results have come from these etforts, and the
theory of two-letter roots has not obtained a general following
among philologists. Why may not these primitive roots of the
language have been formed of three letters as well as two ? The
uniformity and universality of the verbal root of three letters argue
that this is an original and fundamental characteristic of Semitic
speech.
A most important and interesting feature of the language is the
Conjugations manner in which the different conjugations or voices of
Of the verb. the verk are formed. The third person singular of
the perfect (or past) tense is the ground form from which all
model changes take their departure.2 These changes consist in
varying the vowels, doubling the middle letter of the root, and
adding certain formative letters or syllables. In some rare forms
there is a repetition or reduplication of one or two of the radical
1 Davies’ Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar (Mitchell’s Edition), pp. 32, 33. Andover, 1880.
The simple participial form or the imperative ^bp, may perhaps present
equal claim to be the basal form of the Hebrew verb. Comp. Weir, in Kitto’s Journal
of Sacred Literature for Oct., 1849, pp. 309, 310.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS. 81
consonants. Since the time of the great Hebraist Danz (about
A.D. 1700) the verb tap, katal , has been used as a grammatical
paradigm to illustrate the various conjugations of the Hebrew
verb, and though grammarians have differed somewhat in the
number and arrangement of the conjugations, common usage
adheres to the following general outline:
Kal,1 * * * * 6
Niphal,
Piel,
S?i?,
Pual,
Hipbil,
Hopkal,
Hithpael,
Stsimn,
Simple.
Katal , he killed.
Niktal, he was killed.
Intensive.
Kittel, he massacred.
Kuttal , he was massacred.
Causative.
Iliktil, he caused to kill.
Hoktaly he was caused to kill.
Reflexive.
Hithkattely he killed himself.
From the above it will be noticed that the simple, the intensive,
and the causative forms have each a corresponding passive. The
reflexive, from its very nature, would not be expected to have a
corresponding passive, and yet a few rare instances occur of a
Hothpaal or Huthpaal form (nKfttsn, to be made unclean , Deut.
xxiv, 4; to besmeared over with fat, Isa. xxxiv, 6). It should
be noticed in the paradigm how the idea of activity seems to attach
to the a sound, while the e , o, and u sounds are used in forms which
express passiveness. The doubling of roots expresses intensity,
and the prefixing of letters denotes some form of reflexive action.
1 The origin of the terms Kal, Niphal , Piel, etc., is thus stated by Nordheimer :
“The first investigators of the language, who were Jews, wrote in Hebrew, and ac¬
cordingly employed Hebrew expressions for the designation of grammatical phenom¬
ena. To denote the first or simple species they used the word ^p> Kal, light, simple ;
a term which modern grammarians have found it convenient to retain. And to rep¬
resent the remaining species they took the modifications of the verb tas> to do, to
make , which itself supplies the name for this part of speech. Thus, instead of a
term derived from the signification of that form of the verb which receives the prefix
3, such as the word passive , they employed, as a sort of grammatical formula, the cor¬
responding modification of the verb ^3* which is Niphal , and so on of the
rest.” — Critical Grammar of the Hebrew Language, vol. i, p. 97.
6
82
INTRODUCTION TO
But it must not be understood that there are always exact corre¬
spondence and uniformity in the significations of these several
import Of the forms. The Niphal is very generally the passive of
• onjugations. Kal, and the older Hebrew grammarians were wont to
regard it as strictly so; but, like the Greek middle voice, it is used
also to express reflexive and reciprocal action. So also the Fiel con¬
jugation is used to express not only intensity of action, but repeti¬
tion and frequency, and sometimes it has a causative signification.
There are also other forms, so rare and exceptional as not to be
classed along with the conjugations of the usual paradigm, but
which represent peculiar shades of meaning not otherwise ex¬
pressible. Such forms are the so-called Pilel (W?9i?)> Pealal u’tPyttp),
Tiphel and other forms peculiar to certain irregular verbs.
In the Arabic language there are fifteen such different conjuga¬
tions of the verb, though in that language, as in the Hebrew, few
verbs are used in ail their possible forms.
The tense-system of the Hebrew verb is very unlike that of the
Indo-European languages. Some scholars have gone so
Tenses or time- 1 & 0 ,
forms of the far as to deny that the Hebrew language has any ver-
Hebrew verb. forms which can properly be designated tenses.
Sir W. Martin observes that the forms of the Hebrew verb com¬
monly called preterite and future, or perfect and imperfect, “ are
not tenses in the proper sense; i. e., the notion of time as past,
present, or future, is not inherent in the form. They note only
actions or conditions, and the persons of whom such actions or
conditions are predicated. They predicate a certain state of a cer¬
tain subject, and no more. The time to which the action or condi¬
tion, expressed by the form, belongs in each case, is to be gathered
from the context. The present time is understood if none other is
suggested by the context. The difference between the two forms
is not, then, any difference in time, but a difference in the way of
conceiving the action or condition. The forms then may be accu¬
rately described as moods indicating modes of thought rather than
as tenses. These moods, taken in connexion with indications of
time supplied by the context, and so having their generality lim¬
ited and restricted, become equivalent to our tenses. Viewed as
moods, they differ from each other much in the same way as be¬
coming from being , as motion from rest , as progress from comple¬
tion” 1 Similarly Wright remarks concerning the tenses of the
Arabic verb: “The temporal forms of the Arabic verb are but two
in number, the one expressing a finished act, one that is done and
’Inquiries concerning the Structure of the Semitic Languages. Part i, p. 11.
London, 1 876.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
completed in relation to other acts (the perfect); the other an un¬
finished act, one that is just commencing or in progress (the imper¬
fect).” He adds: “We have discarded the names Preterite and
Future, by which these forms are still often designated, especially
in our Hebrew and Syriac grammars, because they do not accu¬
rately correspond to the ideas inherent in them. A Semitic per¬
fect or imperfect has, in and of itself, no reference to the tem¬
poral relations of the speaker (thinker or writer), and of other
actions which are brought into juxtaposition with it. It is pre¬
cisely these relations which determine in what sphere of time
(past, present, or future) a Semitic perfect or imperfect lies, and
by which of our tenses it is to be expressed.” 1
The Indo-European tongues have distinct verbal forms to express
an action of the past as either continuing (imperfect, Unllke In(Jo_
as, I io as writing), or completed definitely (pluperfect, Europeantense
I had written), or indefinitely (aorist, I wrote). They forms*
also have forms for expressing action as continuing in the present
(as I am icriting), and as completed in the present (perfect, I have
written), and other forms for expressing future action in a like two¬
fold way [I icill write, and I will have written). But the less sys¬
tematic and more emotional Semitic mind seems to have conceived
the temporal relations of subject and predicate in a somewhat ideal
way. In whatever position or point of view a speaker or writer
took his stand, he seems to have viewed all things as having some
subjective relation to that standpoint. Time with him was an
ever-continuing series of moments (D'^rj, winks of the eye). The
past was ever running into the future, and the future ever losing
itself in the past. The future tense-form which he Ideal aDd rela_
used may have actually referred to events of the re- tive past and
mote past, but to him it was an ideal future, taking its futlue’
departure from some anterior event either expressed or under¬
stood.2 It is a characteristic of the Hebrew writers to throw them¬
selves into the midst of the scenes or events which they describe,
1 Grammar of the Arabic Language, from the German of Caspari, vol. i, pp. 53. 54.
Second Edition, London, 1874. Compare the similar views of Ewald, Ausfiihrliches
Lehrbuch der heb. Spraclie, §§ 135, 136, pp. 348-358 (Gottingen, 1870), and Driver,
On the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew, Oxford, 1874.* Ewald’s doctrine of the He¬
brew Tenses was controverted by Prof. M. Stuart in the Biblical Repository for Jan.,
1838, pp. 146-173, and Driver’s treatise is reviewed by A. Muller in the Zeitschrift
fur luth. Theologie. 1877, i, p. 198.
2 Murphy suggests that the two tense-forms of the Hebrew verb be designated re¬
spectively as the anterior and posterior. See his article on the Hebrew Tenses, in
Kitto’s Journal of Sacred Literature for Jan., 1850 (pp. 194-202), and comp. Weir
on the same subject in the same Journal for Oct., 1849. Weir observes (p. 317);
84
INTRODUCTION TO
and this consideration largely accounts for the subjective and ideal
way in which the two tense-forms and are employed.
Thus, at the beginning of Genesis (i, 1), we have first the definite
statement, “ In the beginning God created (fcOH) the heavens and
the land.” This statement serves as a heading to the narrative
that follows. Having taken that beginning as a historical stand¬
point, the writer next describes the condition of things at that be¬
ginning, still using the past tense-form: “And the land was (nrpn)
waste and empty, and darkness upon the face of the deep, and the
Spirit of God brooding (nsrnft, feminine participle, kept brooding)
upon the face of the waters.” Such was the state of things in the
midst of which the narrator took his ideal stand; and from that
starting point he proceeds to relate the succession of events. His
next verb is in the future or imperfect tense-form: “And God will
say, Let there be light;” or as we would more familiarly say, then
says God (Dbi^X ")ftNsl), that is, God then, or next, proceeded to say,
etc. The tense-thought here is that the divine fiat, “ Let there be
light,” was consequent upon the period and condition of darkness
which was upon the deep. A succession of thought and a prog¬
ress of time are thus indicated, a mode of conception peculiar to
the Semitic mind, but not naturally transferable to our language.
The past or perfect tense-form is also used when speaking of
The past tense things to be certainly realized in the future. In such
form for fu- cases the event of the future is conceived as somehow
ceived of as completed; it has become a foregone conclusion and
complete. settled purpose of the Divine mind. Thus, for exam¬
ple, in Gen. xvii, 20: “As for Ishmael, I have heard thee (TUy^,
this hearing was actually past); behold, I have blessed him (TOna),
and I have made him fruitful ('H'HBri), and I have multiplied him
CO’1?"]?) exceedingly.” All this was to be realized in the future,
but it is here presented to the mind as something already finished.
It was fixed in the Divine purpose, and from an ideal standpoint
in the future it was viewed as something past. Then it is immedi¬
ately added: “Twelve princes shall he beget (T^, here the indefi¬
nite future is both assumed and expressed), and I have given him
for a great nation.” This last verb again assumes an ideal
“ The Hebrew writers, instead of keeping constantly in view the period at which
they wrote, and employing a variety of tenses to describe the different shades of
past, present, and future time, accomplished the same object by keeping their own
times quite out of view, and regarding as their present the period not at which, but
of which, they wrote.” He accordingly takes the ^ftp form (commonly called past
or perfect) to denote the present, not, however, excluding the idea of a past action
or condition continuing on into the present.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
85
past, a something seen in the mind as complete after Ishmael shall
have begotten twelve princes.
The past and future import of the two tense-forms, as standing
opposed to each other in the indication of time, is apparent in such
passages as, “ Before them there have been (rpnf no
A O \tt/ The two tenses
such locusts as they, and after them there shall not be have a past and
(rrrr) such” (Exod. x, 14). “As I was fn«n) with future imP°rt-
Moses, I will be (irns) with thee” (Josh, i, 5). “Yea, I have
spoken ('Pnsn), also I will bring to pass (nSN'OK); I have formed a
purpose (’•JTlSJ), also I will perform it ” (Isa. xlvi, 11). But in view
of the fact, set forth by the best grammarians, that the past tense
is used for the perfect, the pluperfect, the present, and the future,
and the future tense is used for the present and the past,1 these
different tense-forms of the Hebrew language are to be understood*
not as corresponding to the more fully developed tense-system of
Indo-European tongues, but as exhibiting a peculiarity of the Sem¬
itic mind, which was wont to view the temporal relation of events
in the vivid ideal way explained above. Both the past and future
forms of the verb are often best translated into English by the
present tense. The past form often indicates a past action which
is conceived of as continuing into the present, and having become
habitual. “ The ox knows (IT!') his owner, and the ass the crib of
his master ” (Isa. i, 3). Observe also, in Psa. i, 1 : “ Happy the man
who walks not (^n &6, has ceased from walking) in the counsel of
wicked ones, and in the way of sinners does not stand, and in the
seat of scorners does not sit.” Here it is not difficult to apprehend,
in the tense-form used, an ideal of the past, but it is scarcely prac¬
ticable, except by undesirable circumlocution, to transfer the con¬
ception into simple idiomatic English. The future form is often
used to express the vivid Semitic conception of a past action, or
series of actions, as continuing, or as succeeding one another.
Thus, in 1 Sam. xxvi, 17, 18, we may express the Hebrew futures
by the English present: “And Saul knows the voice of David,
and he says, Is this thy voice, my son David? And says David,
My voice, my lord, O king. And he says, Why is this — my lord
pursuing after his servant ? ”
In the inflexion 2 of Hebrew nouns there is no neuter gender.
1 See Gesenius, Heb. Gram., §§ 126, 127, and Nordkeimer, Crit. Gram, of the He*
brew Language, vol. ii, pp. 161-174.
2 “ A regular inflexion of the noun by cases does not exist in Hebrew. . . . The
connexion of the noun with the feminine, with the dual and plural terminations, with
suffixes, and with another noun following in the genitive, produces numberless changes
in its form, which is all that is meant by the inflexion of nouns in Hebrew. Even
86
INTRODUCTION TO
All objects of nature, inanimate things, and abstract ideas are viewed
The gender of as instinct with life, and spoken of as either masculine
nouns. or feminine. Mountains, rivers, seas, being objects
of majesty and representing strength, are usually masculine. And
they are often pictured before the fancy as consciously exulting
and moving with exuberance of life. Thus the mountains watch
with a jealous eye Psa. lxviii, 16), they rejoice together (Psa.
xcviii, 8), and break forth into song (Isa. xliv, 23), and even leap
and dance like rams (Psa. cxiv, 4, 6). The rushing torrents lift up
their voice and clap their hands (Psa. xciii, 3; xcviii, 8), and the
sea beholds, and flies (Psa. cxiv, 3). The words for city, land, lo¬
cality, and the like, are feminine, being thought of as mothers of
those who dwell therein. The smaller and dependent towns were
called daughters of the principal city (Num. xxi, 25; Josh, xvii, 11).
The names of things without life are generally feminine, probably
from being regarded as weak and helpless. Abstract ideas are also
usually represented as feminine. We are not able to understand,
in all instances, why this or that word came to be used in its par¬
ticular gender, but this whole habit of thought and language had
its origin in an intense lively intuition of nature.
The use of the plural number in Hebrew seems often to denote
use of the not so much a plurality of individuals as fulness, vast-
piunxi. ness, majesty, or completeness of endowments. Thus
the first word of the first Psalm, which we commonly render as an
adjective — “ Blessed is the man,” etc. — is a noun in the plural num¬
ber (,H$N) ; literally, the blessednesses of the man. We bring out its
real force when we take it as an exclamation: 0 the blessednesses of
the mail, etc. ! The idea may be either the manifoldness and multi¬
plicity of blessedness, or the completeness and greatness of blessed¬
ness. The word for life is often plural, as in Gen. ii, 7, “ breathed
into his nostrils the breath of lives ” (D^n) ; verse 9 has “ tree of
lives f and chap, vii, 22, “breath of the spirit of lives” Here the
meaning cannot be, as some have suggested, twofold life — animal
and spiritual, for the plural is used alike of the life of tree, animal,
and man. It seems rather to denote fulness and completeness of
life. So the words for water (DV3) and heaven (DW) are always
used in the plural, probably from the idea of vastness or majesty.
This is also the best explanation of the plural form of the name of
God (D'ri^K) ; what the old grammarians called the plural of excel -
lency , expressing the dignity and manifold power of the Creator of
all things.
for the comparative and superlative, the Hebrew has no appropriate forms, and these
relations must be expressed by circumlocution.” Gesenius, Heb. Grammar, § 79, 2.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS. 87
The foregoing statement of the philological and grammatical
peculiarities of the Hebrew language may serve to
show that it is a most ancient and primitive type of SS:
human speech, and admirably adapted to express vivid mau 8peech-
conceptions and strong emotion. Every letter, as well as every
word, represents some visible or material object, and the studious
observer may pass among its written monuments as through a pic¬
ture gallery, and feel that the images of life are all around him.
Keeping in mind what has been said, we proceed to show the
simplicity of structure, and the emotional expressiveness of this
sacred language, and its consequent fitness to embody and preserve
the ancient oracles of God.
Opening almost anywhere in the narrative portions of the Old
Testament, we find abundant evidence of the simplicity simplicity of
of Hebrew syntax. The sentences are ordinarily short structure,
and vividly expressive. The so-called compound sentences rarely
involve any trouble or obscurity, being usually only two or more
short sentences, whose relation to each other is most direct and
simple. There are no involved constructions and long-drawn periods.
The first chapter of Genesis may be taken as a specimen of prose
narrative, the most simple and natural in its construction of any
composition known to literature. Whatever may be the difficul¬
ties in its exposition, its grammatical structure is simple and in¬
telligible. The following verse from the beginning of the second
chapter of 2 Samuel may be taken as a very fine example of lively
narrative :
And it came to pass after this, that David inquires of Jehovah, saying,
Shall I go up into one of the cities of Judah? And says Jehovah to him.
Go up. And says David, Whither shall I go up? And he says, To
Hebron.
Or take the following, from 1 Kings xix, 19-21 :
And he goes from there, and he finds Elisha, the son of Shaphat, and he
ploughing, twelve yoke before him, and he with the twelfth: and Elijah
passes over unto him, and throws his mantle unto him. And he leaves the
oxen, and he runs after Elijah, and says, I will kiss, now, my father and my
mother, and I will go after thee. And he says to him, Go, Return, for
what have I done to thee ? And he returns from after him, and he takes
the yoke of the oxen and he slaughters him, and with the instruments of
the oxen he boiled them, the flesh; and he gives to the people, and they
eat, and he arises, and he goes after Elijah, and he serves him.
In these translations we have used the present tense where the
Hebrew has the future, as best conveying the spirit of the narra¬
tive. The writer views the whole scene, and depicts the sei^era!
88
INTRODUCTION TO
parts as they follow one after the other. Those several acts are
relatively future from the j>oint of time he ideally occupies, and his
successive sentences are short, rapid, and life-like in their arrange¬
ment. Hundreds of similar specimens might be adduced, taken
almost at random from the Hebrew scriptures.
In very many of the most simple sentences, the subject and pred-
Omission of icate are placed together without any connective par-
copuia. tide or copula. Thus, 1 Kings i, 1 , “ The king David (was)
old;” 1 Kings xviii, 21, “If Jehovah (be) the God;” Prov. xx, 1, “A
mocker (is) wine ; raging (is) strong drink.” This omission in prose
narrative may often be supplied to advantage in translation, being
required by the idiom of another language to complete the sense, and
maintain grammatical accuracy. But the omission gives strength
and beauty to many passages, as, for instance, the following, Psa.
lxvi, 3: “How fearful thy doings!” The attempt of the Author¬
ized Version to supply here what was supposed to be necessary
greatly weakens the sentiment: “How terrible art tliou in thy
works.” So again in Psa. xc, 2, “From everlasting to everlasting
thou, God!” Again, in verse 4, “A thousand years in thy eyes,
as yesterday.” It may, in fact, be said that the italic words
supplied in the Authorized Version detract from the force and
spirit of the original in more instances than they supply any essen¬
tial need.
In the order of words in a sentence, subject or predicate may be
order of sub P^ace(^ according as it is designed to give emphasis
ject and predi- to the one or the other. Very frequently the sentence
opens with a verb, and, according to Gesenius, every
finite verb contains in all cases its subject already in itself under
the form of a personal pronoun, which is necessarily connected with
the verbal form.1 Thus, Gen. ii, 1, “And they were finished, the
heavens, and the land, and all their host.” When two or more
verbs are construed with a single subject, the first is usually placed
before the noun, and the others follow, as so many distinct state¬
ments. Thus, Gen. vii, 18, “And they prevailed, the waters, and
they increased exceedingly upon the land ; and she went, the ark,
upon the face of the waters.”
In the Hebrew language there is a comparative lack of adjec¬
tives. As a substitute, nouns expressive of quality,
material, or character, are used as genitives after the
nouns to be qualified. Thus, instead of golden crown , we have
crown of gold / instead of holy mountain, we have mountain of
holiness. For eloquent man (Exod. iv, 10) the Hebrew is man of
, ■ * 1 Hebrew Grammar, § 144, 2.
89
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
words. The knowing or intelligent man is called a man of knowl¬
edge (Prov. xxiv, 5). This Hebraic usage appears often in the
New Testament Greek. In accordance with this usage the adjec¬
tives proper almost invariably follow the nouns which they qualify.
Thus a wise man, , the great river , would be expressed in Hebrew,
a man wise , river the great. The primitive conception, lying at the
basis of this usage, would seem to be that of an additional word
designed to modify the one just uttered. More fully, then, the
above examples would be: a man — a wise one / the river — the great
one. But when the adjective is used as an emphatic predicate, it
usually stands first in the sentence, as, “ Good and just is Jehovah ”
(Psa. xxv, 8).
There is no formal comparison of adjectives in Hebrew. The
comparative degree is indicated by a use of the prepo- Methodg of
sition from (|D) prefixed to the word with which the comparison,
comparison is made. Thus: “The serpent was crafty from every
beast of the field” (Gen. iii, 1)5 that is, more crafty y his cunning
distinguished him from other beasts. The superlative is expressed
by means of the article, or a suffix, or some peculiar form of ex¬
pression which indicates the highest degree. Thus, the youngest
is the little one (fbjpn, Gen. xlii, 13). The most abject slave is a
servant of servants (Gen. ix, 25) ; the holiest place is the holy of
holies ; the most excellent song is D'n'tpn TE5*, the song of songs.1
The Hebrew particles, namely, adverbs, prepositions, conjunc¬
tions, and interjections, are among the most delicate
and interesting parts of the language. In order to a
keen and discriminating insight into the spirit and bearing of nu¬
merous passages, it is necessary to master the force and usage of
these little words. Usually the grammars and lexicons supply all
the essential information, but it is only by intimate familiarity with
the language that we come to appreciate their delicate and vary¬
ing shades of meaning.
1 Nordheimer (Heb. Grammar, vol. ii, p. 60) designates as “ the absolute superla¬
tive” those striking Hebraic expressions in which a noun is construed with one of
the divine names. Thus, we have wrestlings of God (Gen. xxx, 8), a mountain of
God (Psa. lxviii, 15), mountains of God ( El , Psa. xxxvi, 6), cedars of God (Psa. lxxx,
10), trees of Jehovah (civ, 16), and sleep of Jehovah (1 Sam. xxvi, 12). But these
genitives are not to be understood as designating, adjeetively, a degree of excellence
or of intensity. Rachel would vividly portray her wrestlings with her sister Leah as
wrestlings which she had carried on with God himself. By the mountains of God (or
of El) the psalmist means God’s mountains, mountains which God brought forth (comp.
Psa. xc, 3). So, too, the cedars of God and the trees of Jehovah are trees which
are regarded as the workmanship of God. The sleep of Jehovah (1 Sam. xxvi, 12)
was a slumber which Jehovah caused to fall upon Saul and his attendants.
90
INTRODUCTION TO
Hebrew Poetry.
Much of the Old Testament is composed in a style and form of
x . language far above that of simple prose. The his-
largely poeti- torical books abound in spirited addresses, odes, lyrics,
cal* psalms, and fragments of song. The books of Job,
Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon, are highly
poetical, and the prophetical books (D'jnnK D’WUJ, later prophets of
Hebrew Canon) are mainly of the same order. Nearly one half of
the Old Testament is written in this poetic style. But the poetry of
the Hebrews has peculiarities as marked and distinct from that of
other nations as the language itself is different from other families
of languages. Its metre is not that of syllables, but of sentences
and sentiments. Properly speaking, Hebrew poetry knows nothing
Not metrical metrical feet and versification analogous to the poet-
in structure. jcal forms of the Indo-European tongues. The learned
and ingenious attempts of some scholars to construct a system of
Hebrew metres are now generally regarded as failures. There are
discernible an elevated style, a harmony and parallelism of sen¬
tences, a sonorous flow of graphic words, an artificial arrangement
of clauses, repetitions, transpositions, and rhetorical antitheses,
which are the inmost life of poetry. But the form is nowhere that
of syllabic metre.1 Some scholars have supposed that, since the
Hebrew became a dead language, the ancient pronunciation is so
utterly lost that it is therefore impossible now to discover or re¬
store its ancient metres. But this, at best, is a doubtful hypoth¬
esis, and has all probabilities against it. There is every reason
to believe that the Masoretie pronunciation now in use is in the
main correct, and substantially the same as that of the ancient
Hebrews.
1 On the subject of Hebrew poetry, see Lowth, Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews, in
Latin, with notes of Michaelis, Itosenmiiller, and others (Oxford, 1828), and English
Translation, edited by Stowe (Andover, 1829), and the Preliminary Dissertation to his
Isaiah; Bellermann, Versuch iiber die Metrik der Hebraer (Berlin, 1813); Saalsehutz,
Form der hebraischen Poesie nebst einer Abhandlung iiber die Musik der Hebraer
(Konigsb., 1825), and the same author’s Form und Geist der hebraischen Poesie
(1853); Ewald, Die poetischen Bucher des alten Bundes, vol. i, Translated by Nichol¬
son in Kitto’s Journal of Sacred Literature for Jan. and April, 1848 ; Herder, Spirit
of Hebrew Poetry, English Translation, in two vols., by James Marsh (Burlington,
Vt., 1833); Isaac Taylor, The Spirit of Hebrew Poetry (Phila., 1873); De Wette, In¬
troduction to his Commentar iiber die Psalmen, pp. 32-63. Most of the more impor¬
tant works upon the Psalms, and the Biblical Cyclopaidias, contain valuable disserta¬
tions on Hebrew Poetry and Parallelism.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
91
The distinguishing feature of Hebrew poetry is now generally
acknowledged to be the parallelism of members. This
would be a very natural form for such short and vivid distinguishing
sentences as characterize Hebrew syntax. Let the soul feature-
be tilled with deep emotion; let burning passions move the heart,
and sparkle in the eye, and speak loudly in the voice, and the simple
sentences of Hebrew prose would spontaneously take poetic form.
In illustration of this we may instance the exciting controversy of
Jacob and Laban in Gen. xxxi. The whole chapter is like a pas¬
sage from an ancient epic; but when we read the speeches of Laban
and Jacob we seem to feel the wild throbbings of their human pas¬
sions. The speeches are not cast in the artificial harmony of par¬
allelism which appears in the poetical books; but we shall best ob¬
serve their force by presenting them in the following form. After
seven days’ hot pursuit, Laban overtakes Jacob in Mount Gilead,
and assails him thus:
What hast thou done ?
And thou hast stolen my heart,
And hast carried off my daughters
As captives of the sword.
Why didst thou hide thyself to flee?
And thou hast stolen me,
And thou didst not inform me,
And I would have sent thee away with joy,
And with songs, with timbrel and with harp.
And thou didst not permit me to kiss my sons and my daughters!
Now hast thou played the fool — to do!
It is to the God of my hand
To do with you an evil.
But the God of your father
Yesternight said to me, saying:
Guard thyself from speaking with Jacob from good to evil.
And now, going thou hast gone ;
For longing thou hast longed for the house of thy father.
Why hast thou stolen my gods? Verses 26-30.
After the goods have been searched, and no gods found, “ Jacob
was wroth, and chode with Laban,” and uttered his pent-up emo¬
tion in the following style:
What my trespass,
What my sin.
That thou hast been burning after me?
For thou hast been feeling all my vessels;
What hast thou found of all the vessels of thy house?
92
INTRODUCTION TO
Place here —
Before my brethren and thy brethren,
And let them decide between us two.
This twenty year I with thee ;
Thy ewes and thy goats have not been bereft,
And the rams of thy flock have I not eaten.
The torn I brought not to thee ;
I atoned for it.
Of my hand didst thou demand it,
Stolen by day,
Or stolen by night.
I have been —
In the day heat devoured me,
And cold in the night,
And my sleep fled from my eyes.
This to me twenty year in thy house.
I served thee fourteen year for two of thy daughters,
And six years for thy flock ;
And thou hast changed my wages ten parts.
Unless the God of my father,
The God of Abraham and the fear of Isaac, were for me, —
That now empty thou hadst sent me away.
The affliction and the labour of my hands
God has seen,
And he was judging yesternight. Verses 36-42.
This may not be poetry, in the strict sense; but it is certainly
not the language of common prose. The rapidity of movement,
the emotion, the broken lines, and the abrupt transitions, serve to
show how a language of such peculiar structure as the Hebrew
might early and naturally develop a poetic form, whose distinguish¬
ing feature would be a harmony of successive sentences, or some
artificial concord or contrast of different sentiments, rather than
syllabic versification. Untrammeled by metric limitations, the He¬
brew poet enjoyed a peculiar freedom, and could utter the moving
sentiments of passion in a great variety of forms.
We cannot too strongly emphasize the fact that some structural
Form essential form is essential to all poetry. The elements of poetry
to poetry. are invention, inspiration, and expressive form. But
all possible genius for invention, and all the inspiration of most
fervent passion, would go for nothing without some suitable mould
in which to set them forth. When the creations of genius and in¬
spiration have taken a monumental form in language, that form
becomes an essential part of the whole. Hence the impossibility
of translating the poetry of Homer, or Virgil, or David, into Eng-
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
93
lish prose, or the prose of any other language, and at the same time
preserving the power and spirit of the original.
Bayard Taylor’s translation of Goethe’s Faust is a masterpiece
in this, that it is a remarkably successful attempt to „ , „ ,
. . _ J / , Bayard Taylor
transfer from one language to another not merely the on form in
thoughts, the sentiment, and the exact meaning of the poetry*
author, but also the form and rhythm. Mr. Taylor argues very
forcibly, and we think truly, that “ the value of form in a poetical
work is the first question to be considered. Poetry,” he observes,
“ is not simply a fashion of expression ; it is the form of expression
absolutely required by a certain class of ideas. Poetry, indeed,
may be distinguished from prose by the single circumstance that it
is the utterance of whatever in man cannot be perfectly uttered in
any other than a rhythmical form. It is useless to say that the naked
meaning is independent of the form. On the contrary, the form
contributes essentially to the fulness of the meaning. In poetry
which endures through its own inherent vitality, there is no forced
union of these two elements. They are as intimately blended, and
with the same mysterious beauty, as the sexes in the ancient Her-
maphroditus. To attempt to represent poetry in prose is very
much like attempting to translate music into speech.”1
How impossible to translate perfectly into any other form the
following passage from Milton :
Now storming fury rose,
And clamour such as heard in Heaven till now
Was never; arms on armour clashing brayed
Horrible discord, and the maddening wheels
Of brazen chariots raged; dire was the noise
Of conflict; overhead the dismal hiss
Of fiery darts in flaming volleys flew,
And flying vaulted either host with fire.
So under fiery cope together rushed
Both battles main, with ruinous assault
And inextinguishable rage. All Heaven
Resounded, and had earth been then, all earth
Had to her centre shook. What wonder? when
Millions of fierce encountering angels fought
On either side, the least of whom could wield
These elements, and arm him with the force
Of all their regions.2
The very form of this passage, as it stands before the reader’s,
eye, contributes not a little to the emotions produced by it in the
1 Preface to Translation of Goethe’s Faust.
8 Paradise Lost, Book vi, lines 207-223.
94
INTRODUCTION TO
soul of a man of taste. Change the order of the words, or attempt
to state their naked meaning in prose, and the very ideas will seem
to vanish. The grandeur and beauty of the passage are due as
much to the rhythm, the emphatic collocation of words, the express¬
iveness of the form in which the whole is placed before us, as to
the sublime conceptions they embody. But if so much is due to
the form of poetic writing, much must be lost from any noble poem
when transferred to another language shorn of these elements of
power. The least we can do is to make prominent in our transla¬
tions the measured forms of the original. So far as it may be done
without too great violence to the idioms of our own tongue, we
should preserve the same order of words, emphatic forms of state¬
ment, and abrupt transitions. In these respects Hebrew poetry is
Hebrew spirit probably more capable of exact translation than that of
and form may any other lano'uao'e. For there is no rhyme, no metric
t)6 largely pre- ... .
served in trans- scale, to be translated. Two things it is essential to
lation. preserve — the spirit and the form, and both of these
are of such a nature as to make it possible to reproduce them to a
great extent in almost any other language.1
1 No man, perhaps, has shown a greater power to present in English the real spirit
of Hebrew poetry than Tayler Lewis. The following version of Job iv, 12-21, while
not exactly following the Hebrew collocation of the words, and giving to some words
a meaning scarcely sustained by Hebrew usage, does, nevertheless, bring out the spirit
and force of the original in a most impressive way :
To me, at times, there steals a warning word ;
Mine ear its whisper seems to catch.
In troubled thoughts from spectres of the night,
When falls on men the vision-seeing trance,—
And fear has come, and trembling dread,
And made my every bone to thrill with awe,—
’Tis then before me stirs a breathing form ;
O’er all my flesh it makes the hair rise up.
It stands ; no face distinct can I discern ;
An outline is before mine eyes ;
Deep silence ! then a voice I hear:
Is mortal man more just than God?
Is boasting man more pure than he who made him ?
In his own servants, lo, he trustetb not,
Even on his angels doth he charge defect.
Much more to them who dwell in homes of clay,
With their foundation laid in dust,
And crumbled like the moth
From morn till night they’re stricken down ;
Without regard they perish utterly.
Their cord of life, is it not torn away ?
They die — still lacking wisdom.
See the notes on this rhythmical version, in which Lewis defends the accuracy of
his translation, in Lange’s Commentary on Job, pp. 59, 60. See also Lewis’ articles
on The Emotional Element in Hebrew Translation, in the Methodist Quarterly Review,
for Jan., 1862, Jan. and July, 1863, and Jan., 1864.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
95
While the spirit and emotionality of Hebrew poetry are aue to
a combination of various elements, the parallelism of 4 ,
sentences is a most marked feature of its outward form, of Hebrew par-
This it becomes us now to exhibit more fully, for a allellsm-
scientific interpretation of the poetical portions of the Old Testa¬
ment requires that the parallelism be not ignored. Joseph Addison
Alexander, indeed, animadverts upon Bishop Lowth’s “supposed
discovery of rhythm or measure in the Hebrew prophets,” and con¬
demns his theory as unsound and in bad taste.1 But his strictures
seem to proceed on the assumption that the theory of parallelism
involves the idea of metrical versification analogous to the prosody
of other languages. Aside from such an assumption they have no
relevancy or force. For it is indisputable that the large portions
of the Hebrew scriptures, commonly regarded as poetical, are as
capable of arrangement in well-defined parallelisms as the variety
of Greek metres are capable of being reduced to system and rules.
The short and vivid sentences which we have seen to be peculiar
to Hebrew speech, would lead, by a very natural proc- The process of
ess, to the formation of parallelisms in poetry. The JeSEms^naturai
desire to present a subject most impressively would in Hebrew,
lead to repetition, and the tautology would show itself in slightly
varying forms of one and the same thought. Thus the following,
from Prov. i, 24-27:
Because I have called, and ye refuse;
I have stretched out my hand, and no one attending;
And ye refuse all my counsel,
And my correction ye have not desired ;
Also I in your calamity will laugh ;
I will mock at the coming of your terror;
At the coming— as a roaring tempest — of your terror;
And your calamity as a sweeping whirlwind shall come on;
At the coming upon you of distress and anguish.
Other thoughts would be more forcibly expressed by setting tnem
in contrast with something of an opposite nature. Hence such
parallelisms as the following:
They have kneeled down and fallen;
But we have arisen and straightened ourselves up. Psa. xx, 9.
The memory of the righteous (is) for a blessing,
But the name of the wicked shall be rotten.
The wise of heart will take commands,
But a prating fool shall be thrown down. Prov. x, 7, 8.
1 See the Introduction to his Commentary on The Earlier Prophecies of Isaiah, pp.
48, 49. New York, 1846.
96
INTRODUCTION TO
Such simple distichs would readily develop into more complex ex¬
amples of parallelism, and we find among the Hebrew poems a great
variety of forms in which the sacred writers sought to set forth
their burning thoughts. The more common and regular forms of
Hebrew parallelism are classified by Lowth under three general
heads, which he denominates Synonymous, Antithetic, and Syn
thetic. These, again, may be subdivided, according as the lines
form simple couplets or triplets, or have measured correspondence
in sentiment and length, or are unequal, and broken by sudden bursts
of passion, or by some impressive refrain.
1. Synonymous Parallelism.
Here we place passages in which the different lines or members
present the same thought in a slightly altered manner of expres¬
sion. To this class belong the couplets of Prov. i, 24-27 cited
above, where it will be seen there is a constant repetition of thought
under a variety of words. Three kinds of synonymous parallels
may be specified:
a) Identical, when the different members are composed of the
same, or nearly the same, words:
Thou wert snared in the sayings of thy mouth ;
Thou wert taken in the sayings of thy mouth. Prov. vi, 2.
They lifted up, the floods, O Jehovah ;
They lifted up, the floods, their voice ;
They lift up, the floods, their dashing. Psa. xciii, 3.
It shall devour the parts of his skin,
It shall devour his parts, the first-born of death. Job xviii, 13.
For in a night is spoiled Ar, Moab, cut off.
For in a night is spoiled Kir, Moab, cut off. Isa. xv, 1
b) Similar, when the sentiment is substantially the same, but
language and figures are different:
For he on seas has founded it.
And on floods will he establish it. Psa. xxiv, 2.
Brays the wild ass over the tender grass ?
Or lows the ox over his provender? Job vi, 5.
c) Inverted, when there is an inversion or transposition of words
or sentences so as to change the order of thought:
The heavens are telling the glory of God,
And the work of his hands declares the expanse. Psa. xix, 2.
They did not keep the covenant of God,
And in his law they refused to walk. Psa. lxxviii, 10.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
97
For unto me is lie lovingly joined, and I will deliver him;
I will exalt him, for he has known my name. Psa. xci, 14.
Strengthen ye the weak hands,
And the feeble knees confirm. Isa. xxxv, 3.
2. Antithetic Parallelism.
Under this head come all passages in which there is a contrast or
opposition of thought presented in the different sentences. This
kind of parallelism abounds in the Book of Proverbs especially,
for it is peculiarly adapted to express maxims of proverbial wis¬
dom. There are two forms of antithetic parallelism:
ci) Simple, when the contrast is presented in a single distich of
simple sentences:
Righteousness will exalt a nation,
But the disgrace of peoples is sin. Prov. xiv, 34.
The tongue of wise men makes knowledge good,
But the mouth of fools pours out folly. Prov. xv, 2.
For a moment in his anger:
lifetimes in his favour.
In the evening abideth weeping;
And at morning, a shout of joy. Psa. xxx, 5. (6.)
b) Compound, when there are two or more sentences in each
member of the antithesis:
The ox has known his owner,
And the ass the crib of his lord;
Israel has not known, —
My people have not shown themselves discerning. Isa. i, 3.
If ye be willing, and have heard,
The good of the land shall ye eat;
But if ye refuse, and have rebelled,
A sword shall eat —
For the mouth of Jehovah has spoken. Isa. i, 19, 20.
In a little moment I forsook thee,
But in great mercies I will gatlier thee.
In the raging of wrath I hid my face a moment from thee;
But with everlasting kindness have I had mercy on thee.
Isa. liv, 7, 8.
3. Synthetic Parallelism.
Synthetic or Constructive Parallelism consists, according to
Lowth’s definition, “only in the similar form of construction, in
which word does not answer to word, and sentence to sentence, as
equivalent or opposite; but there is a correspondence and equality
7
l98
INTRODUCTION TO
between different propositions in respect to the shape and turn of
the whole sentence and of the constructive parts; such as noun
answering to noun, verb to verb, member to member, negative to
negative, interrogative to interrogative.”1 Two kinds of synthetic
parallels may be noticed :
a) Correspondent, when there is a designed and formal corre¬
spondency between related sentences, as in the following example
from Psa. xxvii, 1, where the first line corresponds with the third,
and the second with the fourth :
Jehovah, my light and my salvation,
Of whom shall I be afraid?
Jehovah, fortress of my life,
Of whom shall I stand in terror?
This same style of correspondence is noticeable in the following
compound antithetic parallelism:
They shall be ashamed and blush together,
Who are rejoicing in my harm ;
They shall be clothed with shame and disgrace,
Who magnify themselves over me.
They shall shout and rejoice,
Who delight in my righteousness,
And they shall say continually — be magnified, Jehovah,
Who delight in the peace of his servant. Psa. xxxv, 26, 27.
b) Cumulative, when there is a climax of sentiment running
through the successive parallels, or when there is a constant varia¬
tion of words and thought by means of the simple accumulation
of images or ideas :
Happy the man who has not walked in the counsel of wicked ones,
And in the way of sinners has not stood,
And in the seat of scorners has not sat down ;
But in the law of Jehovah is his delight;
And in his law will he meditate day and night. Psa. i, 1, 2.
Seek ye Jehovah while he may be found,
Call upon him while he is near by;
Let the wicked forsake his way,
And the man of iniquity his thoughts;
And let him return to Jehovah, and he will have mercy on him,
And to our God, for he will be abundant to pardon. Isa. lv, 6, 7.
For the fig-tree shall not blossom,
And no produce in the vines ;
Deceived has the work of the olive,
And fields have not wrought food;
1 Lowth’s Isaiah, Preliminary Dissertation, p. 21. London, 1779.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
99
Cut off from the fold was the flock,
And no cattle in the stalls ;
But I — in Jehovah will I exult;
I will rejoice in the God of my salvation. Hab. iii, 17.
But aside from these more regular forms of parallelism, there are
numerous peculiarities in Hebrew poetry which are not irregular struc-
to be classified under any rules or theories of prosody. Jone^poeS
The rapt flights of the ancient bards ignored such utterances,
trammels, and, by abrupt turns of thought, broken and unequal
lines, and sudden ejaculations of prayer or emotion, they produced
a great variety of expressive forms of sentiment. Take, for illus¬
tration, the two following extracts from Jacob’s dying psalm — the
blessings of Judah and Joseph — and note the variety of expression,
the sharp transitions, the profound emotion, and the boldness and
abundance of metaphor:
Judah, thou! Thy brothers shall praise thee;
Thy hand in the neck of thy foesl
They shall bow down to thee, the sons of thy father.
Whelp of a lion is Judah.
From the prey, O my son, thou hast gone up I
He bent low;
He lay down as a lion,
And as a lioness;
Who will rouse him up ?
There shall not depart a sceptre from Judah,
And a ruler from between his feet,
Until lie shall come — Shiloh —
And to him shall be gathered peoples.
Fastening to the vine his foal,
And to the choice vine the son of his ass,
He has washed in the wine his garment,
And in the blood of grapes his clothes. .
Dark the eyes from wine,
And white the teeth from milk. Gen. xlix, 8-12.
Son of a fruit tree is Joseph,
Son of a fruit tree over a fountain ;
Daughters climbing over a wall.
And they imbittered him,
And they shot,
And they hated him, —
The lords of the bow.
Yet remained in strength his bow,
And firm were the arms of his hands,
From the hands of the Mighty One of Jacob;
From the name of the Shepherd, the Stone of Israel;
100
INTRODUCTION TO
From the God of thy father, and he will help thee;
And the Almighty, and he will bless thee;
Blessings of the heavens above,
Blessings of the deep lying down below,
Blessings of breasts and womb.
The blessings of thy father have been mighty,
Above the blessings of the enduring mountains,
The desire of the everlasting hills.
Let them be to the head of Joseph
And to the crown of the devoted of his brothers. Gen. xlix, 22-26.
In the later period of the language we find a number of artificial
Alphabetical poems, in which the several lines or verses begin with
poems. the letters of the Hebrew alphabet in their regular
order. Thus, in Psalms cxi and cxii, the lines or half verses are
arranged alphabetically. In Psalms xxv, xxxiv, cxlv, Prov. xxxi,
10-31, and Lam. i and ii, each saparate verse begins with a new
letter in regular order. In Psa. xxxvii, with some slight exceptions,
every alternate verse begins with a new letter. In Psa. cxix and
Lam. iii, a series of verses, each beginning with the same letter, is
grouped into strophes or stanzas, and the strophes follow one an¬
other in alphabetical order. Such artificiality evinces a later period
in the life of the language, when the poetical spirit, becoming less
creative and more mechanical, contrives a new feature of external
form to arrest attention and assist the memory.
We find also in the Old Testament several noticeable instances
Hebrew rhymes. ° f rhyme- The following, in Samson’s answer to
the men of Timnath (Judges xiv, 18), was probably
designed
Drrehn
vrrn b’n&reD *6
• t • v t ;
If ye had not plowed with my heifer,
Ye had not found out my riddle.
The following are perhaps only accidental :
to'tjb nmp D'w 8$h|5hn ‘pSp
km xiv 'Jn
t : v t : t ; -
Kings of Tarsliish and of isles a gift shall return,
Kings of Sheba and Seba a present shall bring. Psa. lxxii, 10.
• r j •
wm fripjA
As Sodom had we been,
To Gomorrah had we been like. Isa. i, 9.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
101
p]jn 'foa
tiWK 'niiy ny~bv)
In a nation profane will I send him,
And upon a people of my wrath will I command him. Isa. x, 6.1
But aside from all artificial forms, the Hebrew language, in its
words, idiomatic phrases, vivid concepts, and pictorial _
i . . . . r ^ Vividness of
power, has a remarkable simplicity and beauty. To Hebrew words
the emotional Hebrew every thing was full of life, and andPhrases-
the manner of the most ordinary action attracted his attention.
Sentences full of pathos, sublime exclamations, and profound sug¬
gestions often found expression in his common talk. How often
the word behold (H3n) occurs in simple narrative! How the very
process and order of action are pictured in the following passages:
“ Jacob lifted up his feet, and went to the land of the sons of the
east” (Gen. xxix, 1). “He lifted up his voice, and wept. . . .
Laban heard the hearing about Jacob, the son of his brother,
and he ran to meet him, and embraced him, and kissed him, and
brought him to his house” (verses 11, 13). “Jacob lifted up his
eyes, and looked, and, behold! Esau was coming” (Gen. xxxiii, 1).
How intensely vivid the picture of Sisera’s death, wrought by the
hand of Jael:
Her hand to the tent-pin she sent forth.
And her right hand to the hammer of the workmen;
And she hammered Sisera, she crushed his head;
And she smote through and transfixed his temples.
Between her feet he sunk down; he fell; he lay;
Between her feet he sunk down, he fell ;
Where he sunk down, there lie fell slain. Judges v, 26, 27.
There are, again, many passages where a notable ellipsis enhances
the impression: “And now, lest he send forth his hand, ^
and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live
forever — and sent him forth Jehovah God from the garden of
Eden” (Gen. iii, 22). “And now, if thou wilt forgive their sin—
and if not, wTipe me, I pray, from thy book which thou hast writ¬
ten.” “Return, O Jehovah — how long!” (Psa. xc, 13.) The at¬
tempt of our translators to supply the ellipsis in Psa. xix, 3, 4, per¬
verts the real meaning: “ There is no speech nor language where
their voice is not heard.” The simple Hebrew is much more im¬
pressive:
1 Comp, also Isa. i, 25, where three rhymes appear in one verse; and Isa. i, 29-
xliv, 3; xlix, 10; liii, 6; Job vi, 9; Psa. xlv, 8; Prov. vi, 1.
102
INTRODUCTION TO
No saying, and no words; —
Not heard — their voice ;
In all the land went forth their line,
And in the end of the world their utterances.
That is, the heavens have no audible language or voice such as mor¬
tal man is wont to speak; nevertheless, they have been stretched
as a measuring line over all the surface of the earth, and, though
voiceless, they have sermons for thoughtful souls in every part of
the habitable world.
Such elliptical modes of expression would be very natural in a
„ . . language which has no vowels in its alphabet. A writ-
naturally eiiip- ten document, containing only consonants, and capable
of a variety of meanings according as it was pro¬
nounced or understood, must necessarily leave much to the imagi¬
nation of the reader. The simple but emotional speaker will often
convey his meaning as much by signs, gestures, and peculiar into¬
nations of voice, as by his words; and this very habit of leaving
much for the common sense and imagination of the reader to sup¬
ply seems to have impressed itself upon the written language of
the sensitive Hebrew. He took it for granted that his hearers
and readers would understand much that he did not literally
say. In this, however, he was at times mistaken. Like Moses,
when he smote the Egyptian, “ he supposed that his brethren would
understand that God by his hand would give deliverance to them;
but they did not understand” (Acts vii, 25). So sacred writers of
the Old Testament, as well as of the New, left on record things
difficult to understand (< dvovorjra , 2 Peter iii, 16), and hence the
variety of meanings attached to certain parts of Scripture.
In direct addresses almost every object of nature, and even ab-
Emotionaiity of stract ideas, are appealed .to as if instinct with living
direct address, consciousness: “ Spring up, O well; sing ye to her”
(Num. xxi, IV). “Sing, O heavens; and rejoice, O land; break
forth the mountains into song!” (Isa. xlix, 13). “Awake, awake,
put on strength, O arm of Jehovah! as the days of old, the gen¬
erations of eternities” (Isa. li, 9). “Awake, awake, put on thy
strength, O Zion, put on the garments of thy beauty, O Jerusalem,
city of holiness!” (Isa. Iii, 1). “Open, O Lebanon, thy doors, and
fire shall eat into thy cedars ! Howl, O cypress, for the cedar has
fallen, which mighty ones did spoil ! Howl, oaks of Bashan, for
down has gone the inaccessible forest!” (Zech. xi, 1, 2). “O sword,
awake against my friend ; and against the man of my companion¬
ship ! ” (Zech. xiii, V).
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
103
We should also note the anthropomorphisms and anthropopa-
thisms of the Old Testament. They are but the vivid
concepts which impressed the emotional Hebrew mind, anthropom>r-
and are in perfect keeping with the spirit of the language. phism*
What an affecting conception of the personal God in Gen. vi, 5, 6:
“ And Jehovah saw that great was the wickedness of men in the
land, and every imagination of the thoughts of his heart— only evil
all the day. And it repented Jehovah that he made men in the
land, and it pained him to his heart.” Also^in the following: “ And
there was the bow in the cloud, and I looked at it to remember the
covenant eternal between God and every living soul in all flesh,
which is upon the land” (Gen. ix, 16). “Jehovah went down to
see the city and the tower, which the sons of men were building ”
(Gen. xi, 5). Moses’ song (Exod. xv) extols Jehovah as “a man of
war ” (verse 3). He calls the strong east wind (xiv, 21), by which
the waters of the Red Sea were heaped up, “ the wind of thy nose ”
(verse 8), using thus the metaphor of an enraged animal breathing
fury from his distended nostrils. In Hezekiah’s prayer (2 Kings
xix, 16) we have this form of petition: “Stretch out, O Jehovah,
thy ear, and hear; open, O Jehovah, thy eyes, and see.” David
says (1 Chron. xvii, 25): “For thou, O my God, didst uncover the
ear of thy servant — to build for him a house; therefore found thy
servant to pray to thy face.” Observe the suggestive force of
the words here used. David receives the revelation of God from
the prophet NTathan as a confidential communication; as if a bosom
friend had stolen up to him, removed the locks of hair that covered
his ear, and whispered there a secret word of wondrous promise
which, .at that time, no one else might hear. Then it seemed to
the enraptured king that because God had thus found him, and un¬
covered his ear , therefore he had come to find how to pray to God’s
face.1
We have already seen how many influences combine, in the his¬
tory of a language, to modify and change its forms and intro¬
duce new dialects, which may again be developed into new lan-
1 “ Why talk of anthropopathism,” says Taylor Lewis, “ as if there were some spe¬
cial absurdity covered by this sounding term, when any revelation conceivable must
be anthropopathic? If made subjectively — as some claim it should be made, if made
at all — that is, to all men directly, through thoughts and feelings inwardly excited in
each human soul without any use of language, still it must be anthropopathic. There
is no escape from it. Whatever comes in this way to man must take the measure of
man. . . . The thoughts and feelings thus aroused would still be human, and par¬
take of the human finity and imperfection. In their highest state they will be but
shadows of the infinite, figures of ineffable truths.” — The Divine Human in the Scrip¬
tures, p. 43.
104
INTRODUCTION TO
guages.1 But a most remarkable fact of the Hebrew language is
Remarkable that, for more than a thousand years, it suffered no ma-
the^Hebrew terial change. The Hebrew of the latest books of the
language. Old Testament is essentially the same as that of the old¬
est documents. Traces of change and decay may, indeed, be dis¬
covered in the books of Ezekiel, Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah;
but they consist mainly of a few peculiar modes of expression,
and the introduction of various words of a foreign cast. Contact
with other nations wcu^ld naturally introduce some new forms of
speech. Especially did Aramaic words and forms work their way
into the Hebrew books. But this infusion of new words wrought
no essential changes in the structure of the language, and many
forms which are commonly called Chaldaisms are found in the old¬
est books. The fact is, the Hebrew and Aramaic tongues abode
side by side for ages. The monumental stone heap which J acob
and Laban set up in Mount Gilead, Jacob called Galeed; but Laban,
the Syrian, called it Jegar-sahadutha — an Aramaic name of the
same meaning as Galeed (Gen. xxxi, 47). More frequent inter¬
course with Syrians and Chaldseans in later times would naturally
leave its traces in corresponding fulness on the language of the
Hebrews.
Three periods may be distinguished in the Old Testament litera-
Three periods ^ure> an<^ may appropriately be called, respectively, the
of Hebrew lit- earlier , the middle , and the later. The first extended from
the time of Moses to that of Samuel, the second from
David to Hezekiah, and the third from the latter years of the
kingdom of Judah until a few generations after the return from
the Babylonian exile.2 But granting all the evidences of decline
and change that can be fairly established, it still remains indisput¬
able that the Hebrew language continued remarkably uniform, and
in essentially the same stage of development, from the age of Moses
1 Compare above, pp. 72, 73.
8 Gesenius declares for two periods, the first extending from the time of Moses to
the Babylonian exile ; the second from the exile to the time of the Maccabees. These
periods lie calls the golden and the silver age. See his Geshichte der hebraischen
Sprache und Schrift. Lpz., 1816. Bottcher follows Gesenius in deciding for two
periods — the period of rise and bloom (B.C. 1600-600), and the period of decline and
fall (B.C. 600-165). Each of these periods he subdivided into three epochs. See his
Ausfiihrliches Lehrbuch der hebraischen Sprache, Einleitung, pp. 21, 22. Renan dis¬
tinguishes three periods, the archaic, the classic, and the Chaldaic. See his Histoire
generate des Langues Semitiques, p. 116. Paris, 1863. Comp. Ewald, Ausfiihrliches
Lehrbuch, p. 23, and Keil’s, Bleek’s and De Wette’s Introductions to the Old Testa¬
ment. See also the articles on the Hebrew Language in Hertzog, Real-encyclopadie,
the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and the various biblical dictionaries.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
105
to that of Malachi. It never changed so much as even to approach
what might be called another dialect. In spite of migrations, con¬
quest, invasions, revolutions, secession, and exile, the Hebrew lan¬
guage, in which the five books of the Torah were cast, retained its
sacred mould. Chaldaisms are found in Genesis, and archaisms in
Zechariah and Malachi.
Happily, there is little room for dispute as to the approximate
dates of most of the books of the Old Testament. A large amount
of controversy has turned upon the books of Job and Ecclesiastes,
and it is a singular fact that, while some have strenuously con¬
tended that J ob belongs to the Solomonic period, and Ecclesiastes
to a post-exilian date, other critics, equally competent and acute,
maintain the Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes, and attribute
the book of J ob to Moses. This fact shows how uncertain and mis¬
leading are the attempts to ascertain the age of a Hebrew writer
solely from his language. Many words and forms, Difference of
which are often alleged as Aramaisms, may be attrib- diction no con-
uted, rather, to the style and diction of an author, denoe^of date
Isaiah, Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Nahum, though nearly or authorship,
contemporary, vary greatly in their style, and each of them uses
words and forms of expression not elsewhere found ; and yet they
all wrote in the same general prophetic strain. How many more
and how much greater differences, then, are reasonably to be ex¬
pected between them and writers of another period, whose subject-
matter is widely different ! The same author may use a very differ¬
ent diction in two different works, treating on different themes,
and written twenty years apart. If Moses wrote the book of Job
— especially if he wrote it during the forty years of his shepherd
life in Arabia — we certainly would not expect such a highly wrought
poem to resemble the historical book of Genesis, even though we
assume that Genesis and Job were written by him about the same
time. If Solomon composed the book of Ecclesiastes in his old
age, there is no sufficient reason to assume that his style and lan¬
guage in that work must closely resemble the Proverbs and Canti¬
cles written nearly forty years previously.
Such, then, are the principal features of that language in which
the ancient oracles of God were embodied, and in Hebrew a lan-
which they are preserved to us unto this day. Its guagepecuiiar-
. J J , ly adapted to
letters are a picture gallery; its words, roots, and embody God’s
grammatical forms are intimately blended with pro- ancieilt word-
foundest and divinest thoughts. It may well be called, emphat¬
ically, the sacred tongue. It appears in full development in its
earliest written monuments, as if it had been crystallized into
106
INTRODUCTION TO
imperishable form by the marvels of the exodus and the hres of
Sinai. The divine calling of Israel, and their national separateness
from all other peoples, served largely to preserve it from any con¬
siderable change. It retained every essential element of its
structure until the canon of the Old Testament was complete, and
then it ceased to be a living language. But, though dead, it does
not cease to speak. It seems, rather, to have arisen, and to flourish
in another and immortal life. When it ceased to be a spoken lan¬
guage, behold, it was already petrified in records more enduring
than the granite tables on which the ten commandments were
written by the finger of God. As the ancient cities, buried under
the ashes of Vesuvius, now speak from the tomb of ages, and re¬
veal the life and customs of the old Roman world, so the pictorial
and emotional language of the Hebrew Scriptures transports us
into the very heart and spirit of that olden time when God talked
familiarly with men. Like the holy land, in which this language
Hebrew lan more than a thousand years, it abounds in imagery
guage like the that is apt to strike the imagination or affect the senses.
Hebrews land. jt -g^ *n some respects, a reflexion of Canaan itself.
It has a strength and permanency like the mountains about Jeru¬
salem (Psa. cxxv, 2). It can whisper melodious tones for ode and
psalm and elegy, soft and gentle as the voice of the turtle-dove
(Cant, ii, 12), or the gliding waters of Shiloh (Isa. viii, 6). It
can excite emotions of terror like the rushing floods of the an¬
cient Kishon, which SAvept Avhole armies away (Judges \T, 21), or
like the thunder and earthquake which opened the beds of the sea,
and revealed the foundations of the world (2 Sam. xxii, 16). It
has landscape paintings as beautiful as the wild floAver of Sharon
(Cant, ii, 1), charming as the splendour and excellency of Carmel,
and awe-inspiring as the glory of Lebanon (Isa. xxxv, 2). Through
it all there breathes a spirit of holiness as impressive and solemn as
if proceeding from the mysterious darkness in Avliich JehoATah came
doAvn on Mount Sinai (Exod. xix, 18), or from the veiled Holy of
Holies on the Mount Zion Avhich he loved (Psa. lxxviii, 68). Sure¬
ly this language was admirably adapted to enshrine the law and
the testimony of God. It is like the wonderful bush which Moses
saAV at Horeb; behold! it burns continually, but is not consumed.
And AArhen the devout student comes within the spell of its spirit
and poAver, he may hear the sound of a voice, exclaiming: “Pull
off thy sandals from thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest
is holy ground” (Exod. iii, 5).
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
107
CHAPTER Y.
THE CHALDEE LANGUAGE.
A SMALL portion of the Old Testament is written in what is com¬
monly called the biblical Chaldee.1 In Dan. ii, 4, Ezra iv, 7,
2 Kings xviii, 26, and Isa. xxxvi, 11, it is called Aramaic, rPDJK, a
word which is translated in the English Version, after the Septua-
gint, Vulgate, and Luther, “the Syrian tongue.” This language
became early prevalent in all the region known as Aram , the
Syria of the Greeks and Romans, and in course of time branched
out into two very similar dialects known as the East¬
ern and Western Aramaic. These dialects differ chiefly western Am¬
in vocalization, and each maintains an individuality of maic*
its own, but lexically and grammatically they are in all essential
characteristics most intimately related to each other. The Western
Aramaic is now commonly called Syriac; the Eastern, Chaldee.
This latter name has not usually been satisfactory to the learned,
some preferring the name Babylonian, others Babylonian-Semitic.
But the name of Chaldee language, as applied to the Eastern Ara¬
maic, has acquired too great currency to be now set Chaldee a prop-
aside. It is universally admitted that this language f1' ™!ne , ?or
J . o o the biblical Ar-
was in common use among the Babylonians at the time amaic.
of the Jewish exile, and the Babylonians are almost always called
Chaldeans (Hebrew, Chasdim) in the Bible.2 Mention is
made in Dan. i, 4, of “ the tongue of the Chaldeans,” and there
appears no sufficient reason to believe that this was any other than
the common language of Chaldea at the time.3 It was sufficiently
different from the Jews’ language (comp. 2 Kings xviii, 26) to
1 The Chaldee portions are Jer. x, 11, Dan. ii, 4-vii, 28, and Ezra iv, 8-vi, 18, and
vii, 12-26.
2 Compare especially 2 Kings xxiv, 2; xxv, 4, 6, 10, 13, etc. ; Isa. xiii, 19; xliii, 14;
xlvii, 1 ; Jer. xxi, 4, 9 ; xxxii, 4, 6, 24, etc. ; xxxvii, 6, 8, 9 ; 1, 1, 8, 1,0, 13, etc. ; Ezek.
i, 3, 12, 13; Hab. i, 6.
3 Most recent critics (see especially Stuart, Keil, and Zockler, in loco ) hold that the
tongue of the Chasdim (Dan. i, 4) was the learned language of the
priests and wise men, and the court language of the empire, as distinguished from the
Aramaic , the language of the common people. They urge that in Dan. ii, 2, 4, 5, 10 ;
iv, 7 ; v, 7, 11, the Chasdim are a special and predominant class among the wise men
of Babylon, and represent an ancient tribe or people of non-Semitic speech. But it
is also a fact that Daniel applies the word Chasdim to the inhabitants of Babylonia
108
INTRODUCTION TO
make it an object to instruct the young men who were to be trained
for the royal service in its written and spoken QiSP?* T??, Dan. i, 4)
forms. During the seventy years of their exile the Jewish people
largely lost the use of their ancestral language, and appropriated
this Chaldean dialect. When they returned to rebuild their holy
city and temple, they required to have the language of their
sacred books explained to them (Nek. viii, 8). They never again
recovered the use of the Hebrew as a vernacular, but continued
to use the Chaldean dialect until Jerusalem was taken by the
Romans.
When Abram migrated from Ur of the Chaldeans, the differ¬
ences between the Semitic tongues were doubtless fewer and less
noticeable than in the days of Ezra or of Daniel.1 After the time
of David, when intercourse between the Israelites and
course with Ar- the Syrians of Damascus became moie frequent, Aia»-
amaic. maisms would naturally work their way into the Hebrew
lansrunffe of Palestine. The Chaldee verse in Jer. x, 11 is be-
lieved by many to be a gloss, interpolated in the time of the exile,
or very soon afterward,2 but the language and style of J eremiah
show many evidences of Aramaic influence. At the time of his
prophesying the Chaldeans were overrunning Palestine (Jer. xxxiv),
and he survived the destruction of Jerusalem, and was carried
down into Egypt (Jer. xxxix, xl). The language of Ezekiel’s
prophecies evinces the growing power of Aramean speech over
the Hebrew mind, and “the manifold anomalies and corruptions in
his writings betray the decline and approaching ruin of the Hebrew
language, and remind us that the prophet’s home is in a foreign
land.”3
(Dan. v, 30 ; ix, 1), and in all the other books of the Old Testament this is its common
meaning. It is further urged that the use of the word Aramaic (n '’£>”) tf) in Dan.
ii, 4, implies that these learned Chasdim addressed the king in the common language
of the empire, and not the learned tongue of the priesthood and the court. This,
however, is by no means clear. Why may not “the tongue of the Chaldees” be also
called Aramaic ? This was the common name used by Hebrew writers for the lan¬
guage of Chaldea, and it was every way natural for the author of Dan. ii, 4, to use
the word rPD"lX, as Ezra does (in Ezra iv, 7), although he had already spoken of the
same language (in i. 4) as the Chaldee tongue. If, as these critics say, the tongue of
the Chasdim was the court language of Nebuchadnezzar and his dynasty, this tongue,
by all means, should have been used before the king. No satisfactory reason is given
for their using any other. See Bleek, Introduction to the Old Testament, vol. i, pp.
47, 48. English Translation by Venables, Lond., 1875.
1 Compare page 77, above.
2 So Houbigant, Venema, Dathe, Blayney, Doederlein, Rosenmuller, Maurer, Ewald,
Graf, Henderson, and Naegelsbach.
3 Keil, Introduction to Old Testament, vol. i, p. 356.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
109
Daniel, who received an early and thorough training in the
tongue of the Chaldeans, is the first biblical writer who
formally employs this dialect in sacred composition, passages of
After having narrated in Hebrew the successful train- DanieL
ing of himself and his three companions, he passes, in the second
chapter, to an account of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, and from verse
4, where the Chaldeans begin their address to the king: “0 king,
forever live! ” the language changes to Aramaic. This being the
very language in which all the conversation of the court was car¬
ried on, its use here gives to Daniel’s narrative a life-like reality,
and is a monumental evidence of the genuineness and authenticity
of the record. Only a writer of Daniel’s time and position, and
bilinguous as he, would have written thus. Nebuchadnezzar’s
dream was a God-given vision of world-empire, and of its final
overthrow by the power and kingdom of God; and the dream and
its interpretation were written down in a language then common
alike to the people of God and to the mightiest empire of the
world. The succeeding narratives of the golden image and the de¬
liverance of Daniel’s three companions from the burning furnace
(chap, iii), Nebuchadnezzar’s proclamation (chap, iv), Belshazzar’s
feast and sudden overthrow (chap, v), and Daniel’s deliverance
from the lion’s den (chap, vi), were also recorded in the language
of the empire, for they were written for the world to know.
Finally, Daniel’s great vision of world-empire and its overthrow
(chap, vii), is also recorded in Chaldee, for it was only a repetition
under other symbols and in fuller form of the prophecy embodied
in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (chap. ii). This prophecy was for the
whole world rather than for any special purpose of the Jewish peo¬
ple; but when, in the eighth chapter, the prophet passes to visions
of more special import for his own people, he resumes the Hebrew.
The other writer of biblical Chaldee is Ezra, the learned priest
and scribe, who flourished about a century after Daniel. TheChaideeof
He went up from Babylon to Jerusalem, in company Ezra*
with a large number of the exiles, during the reign of the Persian
king Artaxerxes Longimanus (B. C. 457). Familiar from youth
with the Chaldee dialect of Babylon, he also by diligent study
made himself familiar with the sacred literature of his nation, that
he might be able to instruct the people of his age in the law of
Jehovah (Ezra vii, 1-10). The great mass of these returning exiles
had lost the use of their ancestral language,1 and now spoke the
1 It is not to be supposed, however, that all the exiles lost the use of Hebrew.
Many of the better classes preserved it, and the use of it in the books of Ezra, Nehe-
miah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi implies that it was yet familiar to many.
110
INTRODUCTION TO
common language of the Chaldeans among whom they had sojourned
more than seventy years. In connexion with other Levites and
with Nehemiali, Ezra was wont to assemble the people, and read
and explain to them the book of the law of Moses (Neh. viii, 1-8).
The agreement of ancient traditions in associating Ezra with the
Great Synagogue, and the formation of the Old Testament Canon,
may authorize us to believe that, in connexion with Nehemiah and
other leading Jews of his time, he did collect and arrange the books
of the Jewish Canon in substantially the form in which we now
possess them. He lived at a time when such a work could best be
done, and he had facilities for it which no later age possessed.
Ezra was unquestionably one of the greatest men of Israel, and
his mighty influence over the people is attested by the numerous
traditions which still linger about his name.
Such being the historical position and character of this writer, we
can readily understand the bilingual character of the book which
bears his name. When, at chapter iv, 8, he has occasion to insert
the letter of the Samaritans to Artaxerxes (Smerdis), which is em¬
phatically said to have been written and translated into Aramaic,
he naturally gives it in the language in which he found it written —
a language perfectly familiar to himself and his people. For the
same reason he continues his narrative in the Aramaic language as
far as chap, vi, 18; for this part of his book is principally devoted
to foreign and international affairs, and contains copies of letters to
and from Artaxerxes and Darius.1 So, also, the copy of Artaxerxes’
letter and decree, in chap, vii, 12-26, is inserted without note or
comment in this Aramaic language. Such a peculiar use of two
languages, or dialects, was perfectly in keeping with the age and
circumstances of Ezra, who was equally familiar with both tongues;
but it could scarcely be explicable in a writer of any other age or
nation. Ezra had no sufficient reason to translate these Aramaic
documents, which he found ready for his use. Rather, we may
say, he was divinely inspired and overruled to preserve them in
just the form in which he found them. Their subject-matter, like
the Aramaic portions of Daniel, had special lessons for the Gentile
world, and it was well for them to be published and made immor¬
tal in the language of that nation with whose name the exile of the
Hebrews was to be forever associated.
1 It is probable that the whole Chaldee section, from chap, iv, 8 to vi, 18, is an older
document, written by a contemporary of Zerubbabel, for in chap, v, 4, the writer uses
the first person, as if he were a participant in the matters described. Ezra appropri¬
ated this document, containing an authentic history of the troubles attending the re¬
building of the temple, just as he did the document of names and numbers in chap. ii.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
in
This Chaldean language, being, like the Hebrew, only a dia¬
lectical outgrowth of the original Semitic speech, is, in its genius,
idioms, and general structure, substantially the same as Hebrew.
Among its chief peculiarities are (1) the use of nouns
® . r v ' . Grammatical
in the emphatic state. This usage does away with the peculiarities of
article, so that where the Hebrew would have Tjtan, theChaldee-
hammelek , the king , the Chaldee has Kite, malkci. (2) The termi¬
nation of the masculine plural of nouns in p— where the Hebrew
has D'— . (3) The use of the relative *1 (shortened prefix *n) in the
various senses in which the Hebrew employs and also as a
sign of the genitive case. (4) A pleonastic use of the suffix pro¬
nouns; as “unto him , unto Artaxerxes, the king (Ezra iv, 11); “the
name of him , of God” (Dan. ii, 20). (5) There are three ordinary
conjugations of the verb, the Peal, Pael, and Aphel, corresponding
substantially with the Kal, Piel, and Hiphil in Hebrew,1 and each
of these has a passive or reflexive mode, formed by prefixing the
syllable nx, thus :
Simple. Intensive. Causative,
Peal, Pael, Aphel,
Ithpeal, tepriX Ithpaal, tapnfc? Ittaphal, tepnK
In Chaldee, as in Hebrew, there are also several rare and peculiar
conjugations, and the biblical Chaldee makes use of the conjuga¬
tions Hiphil and Hophal, and in other instances uses n instead of X.
We also find in Chaldee imperatives in the passive form, and a dis¬
tinct masculine and feminine termination (V— and K— ) for the third
person plural of the past tense. The participle is also used for the
finite verb, and is construed with nouns and pronouns far more
frequently than in Hebrew. In its lexical forms the Chaldee is
specially noticeable in its use of the letters 1 instead of T, D and D
instead of and V instead of ¥.
In the few Aramean chapters of our Bible we can scarcely expect
to find a very full illustration of all the peculiarities of this lan¬
guage. In its general spirit and form we trace, however, a ten¬
dency to depart from the suggestive brevity of expression which
we notice in the ancient Hebrew, and to leave less to the imagina¬
tion and understanding of the reader. There is less of animation
and freshness of thought, and more of effort to set forth facts and
ideas with fulness and precision. Nevertheless, we occasionally
meet with passages of peculiar force and emotion. Notice the pe¬
culiar pleonastic structure and style of the following verse, which
we translate literally from Dan. iii, 8 : “ All because of this, in it,
1 Comp, the Hebrew paradigm above, page 81.
112
INTRODUCTION TO
the time, approached men, Chaldeans, and devoured the pieces of
them, of the Jews.” The expression, devoured tlxeir pieces, is meta¬
phorical, denoting the rabid fury of the Chaldeans in accusing the
Jews, as if, like ravenous beasts, they would tear them into bits,
and devour them. In the twenty-fifth verse of the same chapter,
mark the mingled excitement and awe of Nebuchadnezzar’s words :
“Ha! I see men, four, unbound, walking in the midst of the fire,
and hurt there is not in them, and the aspect of him, of the fourth,
is like to a son of the gods ! ” Some passages naturally fall into
parallelisms, as the following, from Nebuchadnezzar’s proclamation
(Dan. iv, 10-14):
I was looking, and behold, a tree in the midst of the land,
And the height of it was great;
Greatly increased became the tree, and mighty,
And the height of it was reaching to the heavens,
And the sight of it to the end of all the land.
Its foliage was beautiful, and its fruit abundant,
And there was food in it for all.
Under it the beast of the field found shade,
And in its branches dwelt the birds of heaven,
And from it all flesh was fed.
I was looking, in the visions of my head, upon my bed,
And behold, a watcher, even a holy one,
And from the heavens he descended;
He called aloud, and thus he spoke:
Cut down the tree, and lop off its branches,
Remove its foliage, and scatter its fruit,
Let the beast run away from under it,
And the birds from its branches.
The current language of such a world-empire as that of Babylon
Foreign words wou^ naturally appropriate many foreign words. It
should, therefore, occasion no surprise to find Median,
Persian, and Greek words in Chaldee writings belonging to the era
of Nebuchadnezzar.1 This Chaldean dialect, adopted by the Jews
during their exile, was retained by them after their return to their
fatherland. The prophecies of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi,
and the books of Ezra and Nehemiah were written in Hebrew, for
they were to have a place among the sacred books,2 but the com-
1 See Rawlinson on the Persian words in Ezra, and also the Excursus on Persian
words in Daniel, in the Speaker’s Commentary, vol. iii, p. 421 and vol. vi, p. 246.
2 The Hebrew did not altogether go out of use until long after the return from the
Babylonian exile. It was used by such men as Haggai, Ezra, and other prophets,
priests, and scribes of the law. Keil thinks the later prophets studied to imitate the
style of the oldest Hebrew, and therefore used archaisms from the Pentateuch.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
118
mon language of the people was this Babylonian- Aramaic, which
maintained itself in Palestine during the periods of Persian, Greek,
and Roman dominion. It is called Judaic (JVTirp) in Neh. xiii, 24,
and Hebraistic , or the Hebraic dialect , in the Apocrypha and in the
New Testament.1 The numerous Chaldee words used in the New
Testament2 are also an evidence that it was the common language
of Palestine in the time of our Lord.3 Its most considerable lit¬
erature is contained in the Targums, the oldest of which were prob¬
ably written before the beginning of the Christian era.4
It is not without historical significance that Ezra and Daniel
wrote a portion of the Scriptures in this language of the Chal¬
dees. These chapters abide a monumental witness of Israel’s con¬
tact with the mighty world-powers. Out of the land Historical and
of the Chaldees Abram was called, and in him, it was apologetic vai~
said that all families and nations of the earth should dee parts of the
be blessed. After fourteen centuries of religious cul-
ture and revelation, his sons, by many thousands, were carried back
into the same Chaldean land. Through Daniel in Babylon God
made his wonders and power known to the mightiest nations of the
world, and Israel’s exile in Babylon, like Joseph’s life in Egypt, served
the double purpose of preserving the chosen people from utter ruin
by idolatry, into which they had been fast running in Canaan, and
of showing forth to the mightiest nation of the earth the wisdom
and power of God. Daniel wrote in the tongue of the Chaldeans
the fall of that mighty monarchy, which was symbolized by the
golden head of the image (Dan. ii, 32, 38), and the great lion with
eagle’s wings (vii, 4). Ezra wrote in the same tongue the conflicts
of the restored Israel with other heathen powers. These chapters
foreshadow a gradual transition to a new era, and led the way to
the subsequent appropriation of the Greek language, in which the
New Testament Scriptures appear.
lfEj SpaioTi and rrj 'E,3paidi dia?.EKTu. See Prologue to Ecclesiasticus and John
v, 2; xix, 13, 17, 20; Acts xxi, 40; xxii, 2; xxvi, 14.
2 Such as Raca (Matt, v, 22), Golgotha (Matt, xxvii, 33), Talilha cumi (Mark v, 41),
Corban (Mark vii, 11), Ephphatha (Mark vii, 34), Rabboni (Mark x, 51), Abba (Mark
xiv, 36), Gabbatha (John xix, 13), Aceldama (Acts i, 19), Maran atha (1 Cor. xvi, 22).
3 See the Essay of Prof. II. F. Pfannkuche, On the prevalence of the Aramaean
Language in Palestine in the Age of Christ and the Apostles ; translated from the
German by E. Robinson, in the Biblical Repository, for April, 1831.
4 For a convenient account of the character and age of the Targums, see Harman,
Introduction to the Study of the Holy Scriptures, pp. 52-55, and the Appendix to
Hackett’s translation of Winer’s Grammar of the Chaldee Language, Andover, 1845.
See also the Biblical Cyclopaedias under the word Targums.
8
114
INTRODUCTION TO
CHAPTER VI.
THE GREEK LANGUAGE.
The Greek language belongs to the so-called Indo-European iamily,
All indo-Euro- which extends from the eastern boundary of India to
pean tongue. ^he western shores of Europe. Midway between these
two extremes, on that JSgean shore “ where every sight is beauty,
and every breath a balm,” the nation of the Greeks arose and
flourished. In ideals of government, in models of taste, in oratory,
mathematics, architecture, sculpture, history, and philosophy, they
have furnished the masterpieces of the world. In these several de¬
partments, Solon, Homer, Demosthenes, Euclid, Phidias, Thucyd¬
ides, and Plato, are representative and immortal names.
It has long been observed that natural scenery has much to do
with the development of national life, and may give character to
the civilization of a people. We have already called attention to
the fact that Hebrew civilization and literature resemble the varied
Language and scenery of the Holy Land. So may we also trace a
civilization af- relationship between the land of the Greeks, and that
fected by natu- . . t .. ... , ’
rai scenery and exquisite literature and versatile life and talent exhib-
chraate. ited in their remaining monuments of science and art.
“If we inquire into the causes of this singular excellence,” says
W. S. Tyler, “ God laid the foundations for it when he laid the
foundations of the earth; when he based the whole country, not,
like England and America, upon coal and iron, but upon Pentelic,
Hymettian, and Parian marble ; when he not only built the moun¬
tains round about Athens of the finest materials for sculpture
and architecture, but fashioned their towering fronts and gently
sloping summits into the perfect model of a Grecian temple, and
lifted from the midst of the plain the Acropolis and Mars’ Hill — fit
pedestals for temples and statues, fit abodes for gods and god-like
men; when he reared to heaven Helicon, Parnassus, and the snow¬
capped Olympus, where dwelt the muses and the gods, and poured
down their sides the rivers in which the river-gods had their dwell-
ingplace, and from which the muses derived their origin; when he
diversified the whole country with mountain and valley, with plain
and promontory, with sea and land, with fountain, and river, and
bay, and strait, and island, and isthmus, and peninsula, as no other
country in the world, within the same compass, is diversified, and
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
115
thus gave to each district almost every variety of soil, climate, and
natural scenery; when he drew the outline of the shores winding
and waving, as if for the very purpose of realizing the ideal line of
beauty, and spread around them the clear, liquid, laughing waters
of the nohvfpkoiopoio OaXdaoTjs,1 and poured over sea and land the
pure transparent air and bright sunshine which distinguish Greece
in the dry season scarcely less than the rainless Egypt, and cano¬
pied the whole with that wonderfully deep and liquid sky, blue
down to the very horizon, which is the never-ceasing admiration of
foreigners who visit Athens.” 2
llie Greeks were first so called by the Latins, who probably
obtained their earliest acquaintance with them from The Greekg
one of their northern tribes called the Grteci (Tpaucoi). called Hellenes.
Thence the name passed into most of the languages of Europe.
But the more proper name of the nation was Hellenes (*E XXrjveg),
and the entire territory they occupied was called in general Hellas.
The earliest settlements and history of the Hellenes are veiled in
obscurity. The common tradition is, that they were descended
from Hellen, the son of Deucalion and Pyrrlia, who survived the
flood. According to the genealogy of nations given in the tenth
chapter of Genesis, we trace them back to Javan, the son of
Japheth (Gen. x, 2). The name Javan ( JJJ ) is the Hebrew equiva¬
lent of Ion (Tom), the traditional ancestor of the Ionians, with
whom the Phoenicians and the Semitic peoples would naturally
identify the entire Hellenic race.3
The ancient Hellenes early branched off into numerous tribes,
known as the Dorians, AColians, Achaeans, and Ionians, Tribes and dia-
and, according to that linguistic law which we have lects*
noticed above,4 these scattered tribes soon became distinguished by
differences of dialect. Not only may we now discover the princi¬
pal dialects, viz., the Doric, HColic, Ionic, and Attic,5 and trace
different periods in the development of these, such as old, middle,
and new; but less noticeable differences may be also traced, as the
more or less divergent speech of the Thessalonians, Bceotians,
Laconians, and Sicilians. Passing by the confused legends of the
1 “ Many-sounding sea,” Homer, Hiad, i, 34.
2 Oration at Andover Theological Seminary on Athens, or ^Esthetic Culture and the
Art of Expression, published in Bibliotheca Sacra, Jan., 1863.
* See Smith, Dictionary of the Bible, article Javan.
4 See page '72.
5 See, on these several dialects, the second and improved edition of Kiihner, Aus-
fuhrliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache, Einleitung, pp. 7-37. Hannover,
1869-70.
116
INTRODUCTION TO
earliest migrations, and the history and peculiarities of the Doric
and HColic dialects, we may well believe that the Ionians having
crossed the HCgean Sea from Athens, settled on the western coast
of Asia Minor, and took the lead of all the Greek tribes in the
development of literature and art. The most ancient
monuments of their literature are the poems of Homer
and Hesiod. But it would scarcely be proper to assume that the
language of these poems was the common language of the people.
As poets, they would be likely to appropriate many archaic and
unusual forms. Hence the Greek language, as exhibited in these
most ancient works, is called the Epic. A later form of Ionic
speech is seen in the few fragments of lyric poetry attributed to
Archilochus, Callinus, and Mimnermus. To a still later period be¬
longs the well-known Ionic prose writer and historian, Herodotus.
These writings represent, respectively, the old, the middle, and the
new Ionic Greek. This dialect is believed to represent more near¬
ly than others the ancient Hellenic language. Its early and impor¬
tant literature would naturally give it a permanency, but, after their
first remarkable activity, the Ionians declined.
Meanwhile Athens, the mother city of the Ionians, began to rise
in power and fame, and gradually acquired supremacy among the
Grecian cities. The Attic capital became the centre of intellec¬
tual activity. Thither repaired Hellenic youths from all the tribes
to study models of elegance and taste, and the Attic di-
1 cu ur ' alect became, by degrees, the language of the educated
classes throughout the states of Greece. But in the Attic, as in
the Ionic, we may note three periods, the old, the middle, and the
new. The old Attic differed but little from the Ionic, for the
Ionians were originally inhabitants of Attica. In this dialect the
distinguished Athenian lawgiver, Solon, wrote, his laws and poems,
several fragments of which are still extant. The middle Attic rep¬
resents the language in the golden period of its elegance and glory.
Its classic monuments are the historical works of Thucydides and
Xenophon, the orations of Isocrates and Lysias, the philosophical
dialogues of Plato, and the dramatic poetry of iEschylus, Sopho¬
cles, Euripides, and Aristophanes. The new Attic is usually dated
from Demosthenes and iEschines, whose orations are regarded
as models of eloquence. But after the Macedonian conquest
(B.C. 338) the Attic dialect suffered a gradual decay. The lan¬
guage of the Macedonians, though genuine Greek, was probably
Decay of Attic never reduced to writing by the natives; but the ascend-
eiegance. enCy 0f these ru(jer northerners, and their subversion
of the independence of Athens, had the necessary tendency to
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
117
corrupt the classic speech of Attica. A fusion of dialects ensued.
Alexander the Great, trained by the philosopher Aristotle, who
used the Attic, must have become early familiar with that dialect
and its literature, and his mighty conquests spread this lan¬
guage over all Western Asia, and into Egypt. The breaking up
and intermingling of rival states and communities, and the found¬
ing of Greek colonies in many parts of this vast territory, led to
numerous departures from the classic forms of Attic speech. Nev¬
ertheless, the Attic dialect remained the basis and controlling fac¬
tor of this later Greek. This widespread language of _ ,
the Macedonian Bmpire, from its appropriation of or common dia-
words and forms from various sources, and from its lect‘
general use, received the name of the common dialect (?) kolvt)
dtaXeKTog). The successors of Alexander maintained and spread its
use into all the principal towns and cities. On the reduction of
Corinth to a Roman province (B. C. 146) this Greek language and
literature extended westward, and every educated Roman became
familiar with it. At the beginning of the Christian era, this com¬
mon dialect was written, read, and spoken from Spain on the west
to the borders of India on the east, and from Sarmatia on the north
to Ethiopia in the south. “If any one imagines,” says Cicero,
“that a less amount of glory is to be derived from Greek than
from Latin verses, he greatly errs, for Greek writings are read
in almost all regions, while the Latin are confined within their
own limits, which are narrow enough.” 1 One of the fragments of
Epictetus declares that “ in Rome the women hold Plato’s Repub¬
lic in their hands.”2 “What do the Greek cities desire,” asks Sen¬
eca, “in the midst of barbarian countries? What means the Mace¬
donian speech among Indians and Persians ? ” 3 It is obvious,
therefore, how the common language of the widespread Macedonian
Empire would naturally gather something from almost every quar¬
ter. The later Greek had no longer a variety of dialects, in the
older sense, but blended many of those ancient local peculiarities,
and adopted not a few foreign idioms. Yet, in some places, old
forms would maintain themselves more or less fully. Atticisms
would prevail at Athens, and Doric forms in the districts where
the old Doric had formerly prevailed.
The principal literary centres of this later Attic or common dia¬
lect were Athens, Antioch, and Alexandria. The last- Literary centre8
named city, founded by Alexander himself, whose keen
foresight perceived that a city occupying this site must certainly
1 Oratio pro A. Licinio Archia, sec. 23. 2 Epict., Frag. 58.
3L. Annaeus Seneca, De cousolatione ad Helviam matrem, vii.
118
INTRODUCTION TO
command the commerce between the East and the West, became,
under Ptolemy Soter, renowned for literature and science. 1 his
enterprising ruler founded the famous Alexandrian Library, and
collected for it the accessible literature of all nations. Thither he
Alexandrian invited philosophers and learned men from all lands,
culture. and the new city became rapidly filled with the repre¬
sentatives of all schools of philosophy and the devotees of all lelig-
ions. Among all these the Greek was the common language of
intercourse, and was sometimes called the Macedonian, but more
commonly the Alexandrine, dialect.
Meantime the Jews had become largely scattered throughout
the Macedonian Empire, and, dwelling in numerous cities where
the Greek was generally spoken, they adopted it ns their com-
Aiexandrian mon language. But Alexandria especially contained
jews. large numbers of Jews.1 The liberal policy of the first
two Ptolemies (Soter and Philadelphus) invited them thither, and
their commercial tastes and tact found there peculiar attractions.
According to well-known tradition, the Septuagint version of the
Old Testament was made by the direction of one of these kings.
Internal evidence, however, shows that this version was made at
different times and by different persons during the three centuries
preceding the Christian era. As the Jewish exiles at Babylon
lost by degrees the use of Hebrew, and adopted the tongue of
the Chaldeans, so the Jews of the dispersion, living in Greek
cities, adopted the Greek, and required to have their Scriptures
translated into the same language. These Greek-speaking Jews
were called Hellenists, and since the beginning of the
seventeenth century it has been customary to call the
later Greek dialect, as used by Jews, the Hellenistic Greek. On
the common language of these Greek-speaking Israelites, or Hellen¬
ists, the use of the Septuagint version of the Old Testament would
necessarily exert a moulding influence. The speech of all Hellen¬
ists, whether of Alexandria, or Tarsus, or Antioch, or Corinth,
would acquire a certain peculiarity of style, a kind of ethnic
tinge. The Greek translators of the Old Testament transferred
many Hebrew idioms into their version, and found it necessary to
employ Greek words to express ideas entirely new and foreign to
the Greek mind. Hebraic forms of speech would thus become com¬
mon among the Hellenists, and differentiate them from other Greek¬
speaking peoples.
1 According to Philo (Treatise against Flaccus, sections vi and viii) they numbered
a million of men in all Egypt, and constituted about two fifths of the entire popula¬
tion of Alexandria.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
119
When Christianity introduced a new life and religion into the
world, its sacred books were all written by Jews or Jewish pros¬
elytes, who used the later Hebraic or Hellenistic Greek. These
writers found it necessary again to use this language
for the setting forth of ideas and truths which had as influencing
never before been clothed in any human language. Greek speeoh-
New significations thus became attached to old words, and new
forms of speech were coined to express the concepts of the Gospel.
Accordingly, the New Testament language and diction have, neces¬
sarily, peculiarities of their own.
There is, happily, no occasion now to repeat or continue the old
controversy between the Purists and the Hebraists touching the
character of the New Testament Greek. The Purists, controversy be-
in claiming for it all the classic puritv and elegance of tween the Pur~
i •/ o ists and tli6 Hb-
the ancient Greek, seem to have been actuated by the braists.
same principle as those who contended for the inspiration of the He¬
brew vowel-points. To them it seemed also a disparagement of the
holy books to say that they were written in a corrupted dialect, or
one less pure and perfect than any Grecian models. On the other*
hand, some of the Hebraists went to the extreme of charging bar¬
barisms and manifold inaccuracies upon the language of the New
Testament writers. Comparative philology, and more thorough
linguistic research, have rendered the old controversies obsolete,
and it is now seen, in the light of history and of the science of
language, how and why the Hellenistic Greek of the New Testa¬
ment differs from the older classic tongue.1
1 So early as the latter part of the sixteenth century, Beza (De dono Linguae, etc.,
on Acts x, 46) acknowledged the Hebraisms of the New Testament, but extolled them
as being ‘ of such a nature that in no other idiom could expressions be so happily
formed; nay, in some cases not even formed at all” in an adequate manner. lie con¬
sidered them as “gems with which [the apostles] had adorned their writings.” The
famous Robert Stephens (Pref. to his N. Test., 1576) declared strongly against those,
“ qui in his scriptis [sacris] inculta omnia et horrida esse putant ; ” and he laboured
not only to show that the New Testament contains many of the elegancies of the true
Grecian style, but that even its Hebraisms give inimitable strength and energy to its
diction. Thus far, then, Hebraism was not denied but vindicated; and it was only
against allowing an excess of it, and against alleged incorrectnesses and barbarisms,
that Beza and Stephens contended.
Sebastian Pfochen (Diatribe de Ling. Graec. N. Test, puritate, 1629) first laboured
in earnest to show that all the expressions employed in the New Testament are found
in good classic Greek authors. In 1658, Erasmus Schmidt vindicated the same ground.
But before this, J. Junge, rector at Hamburg, published (in 1687, 1689) his opinion
in favour of the purity (not the classic elegance) of the New Testament diction; which
opinion was vindicated by Jac. Grosse, pastor in the same city, in a series of five
essays published in 1640 and several successive years. The last four of these were
directed against the attacks of opponents, i. e., of advocates for the Hellenistic diction
120
INTRODUCTION TO
The sources from which we are to learn the peculiarities of
, . the later Greek are the writers of the Alexandrine
•Sources of in¬
formation and and Roman periods of Greek literature, but more espe-
study* eially the grammarians, scholiasts, and lexicographers,
who have expressly treated of the differences between Attic ele¬
gance and the corruptions of the later Greek. But the great
monuments of the Hellenistic Greek are the Septuagint version of
the Old Testament, the apocryphal books, and the scriptures of the
New Testament. The writings of Philo Judaeus, Josephus, the
Apostolical Fathers, and sundry writers of the later Roman period,
have also a value in this connexion; but the New Testament itself
must furnish the principal illustrations for the purpose of the bibli¬
cal interpreter. It is of the first importance for us to remember
that the New Testament writers learned their Greek not from
books, but from the language of common life. There is no suffi¬
cient reason for believing that any of the Evangelists or Apostles
were extensively familiar with Greek literature; not even Paul,
who, indeed, quotes from Greek writers (Acts xvii, 28; Titus i, 12),
of the New Testament; viz., against Dan. Wulfer’s Innoeentia Hellenist, vindicata
(1640), and an essay of the like nature by J. Musaeus of Jena (1641, 1642).
Independently of this particular contest, D. Heinsius (in 1643) declared himself in
favour of Hellenism; as also Thos. Gataker (1648), who avowedly wrote in opposition
to Pfoclien, with much learning, but rather an excessive leaning to Hebraism. Joh.
Vorstius (1658, 1665) wrote a book on Hebraisms, which is still common. On some
excesses in this book Horace Vitringa made some brief but pithy remarks. Some¬
what earlier than these last writings, J. II. Boeder (1641) published remarks, in which
he took a kind of middle way between the two parties; as did J. Olearius (1668), and
J. Leusden about the same time. It was about this time, also, that the majority of
critical writers began to acknowledge a Hebrew element in the New Testament diction,
which, however, they did not regard as constituting barbarism , but only as giving an
oriental hue to the diction. M. Solanus, in an able essay directed against the tract of
Pfochen, vindicated this position. J. H. Michaelis (1707), and A. Blackwall (Sacred
Classics, 1727), did not venture to deny the Hebraisms of the New Testament, but
aimed principally to show that these did not detract from the qualities of a good and
elegant style ; so that, in this respect, the New Testament writers were not inferior to
the classical ones. The work of the latter abounds with so many excellent remarks,
that it is worthy of attention from every critical reader, even of the present time.
In 1722, Siegm. Georgi, in his Yindiciae, etc., and in 1733 in his Hierocriticus Sacer,
vindicated anew the old views of the Purists; but without changing the tide of
opinion. The same design J. C. Schwartz had in view in his Comm. crit. et philol.
in Ling. Graec. (1636); who was followed, in 1752, by E. Palairet (Observ. philol. crit.
in N. Test.), the last, I believe, of all the Purists.
Host of the earlier dissertations above named, with some others, were published
together in a volume by J. Rhenferd, entitled Dissertationum philol. theol. de Stylo
N. Test. Syntagma, 1702; and the later ones by T. H. Van den Ilonert, in his Syntagma
Dissertatt. de Stylo N. Test. Graeco, 1703. Stuart, Grammar of the New Testament
Dialect, pp. 8, 9. Andover, 1841.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
121
for such passages as he cites were of a kind that would naturally
be current among the people.
Planck, in his valuable Dissertation on the true nature and char¬
acter of the Greek Style of the New Testament,1 classi- peculiarities
fies its chief peculiarities and characteristics under eight
heads, which, in the main, we follow, though drawing lenistic Greek,
our illustrations from many other sources.
1. Words adopted into the Greek language from foreign sources.
Here belong the Aramaic words already noticed; such
as Abba , Epliphatha , Corban , Aceldama / names of Ro¬
man coins; as drjvdgiov, Latin denarius • Kodgdvrrjg, a farthing, from
the Latin quadrans ; 7rpaiTG)piov , Latin preetorium (John xviii, 28);
(pekovrjg, written also (paiXovr/g, <f>eX&vr\g, and (patXcovTjg (2 Tim. iv, 13,)
corrupt form of (paivo^g , from the Latin pcemda , a cloak.
2. Words peculiar in their orthography and pronunciation. The
New Testament writers did not follow any common peculiar or-
standard of orthography. Peter, John, Paul, and James thography.
had each his peculiar method of spelling certain words, and proba¬
bly transcribers of their manuscripts used still a different method,
according to the custom of later times. In this respect the most
ancient manuscripts exhibit variations. Alexandrian copies differ
in orthography from those of Constantinople, and the writers or
transcribers seem in many instances to have been governed by a
preference for certain dialectic forms; as aerog, eagle (Matt, xxiv,
28), an Attic form for alerog ; vakog, glass (Rev. xxi, 18), instead
of veXog; Ueug, mercifid (Heb. viii, 12), instead of IXaog. Doric
orthography is seen in rad£w, to arrest (John vii, 30), instead of
; tcXifiavog, oven (Luke xii, 28), instead of Kpifiavog; Ionic, in
Pa$g6g, grade or degree (1 Tim. iii, 13), for Paapog; 7 Tgrjvrjg, headlong
(Acts i, 18), for TTQavrjg.
3. Peculiarities in the flexion of nouns and verbs. The form
’AttoXXg) is used for the accusative (Acts xix,^ 1), and Flexion of
the genitive (1 Cor. i, 12); the accusative vy ir\, sound, nouns and
whole (John v, 11, 15; Titus ii, 8), instead of the more ver s*
usual form vyid; acftievrai, or atyeovrai, are forgiven, (Matt,
ix, 2, 5; Luke v, 20; 1 John ii, 12), is used instead of dcpelvrai;
Jifov, sit thou (Matt, xxii, 44; James ii, 3), instead of Ka^co, and
nd$xi, thou sittest (Acts xxiii, 3), instead of \td&r\Gai. We have also
1 Commentatio de vera Natura atque Indole Orationis Graecee Novi Testamenti, by
Henry Planck, Prof, in the University of Gottingen. This very important essay was
first published in 1810, and was afterward republished in Rosenmiiller’s Commenta-
tiones Theologies, 1825. It was translated into English by E. Robinson, and pub¬
lished in the American Biblical Repository, Andover, Oct., 1831.
122
INTRODUCTION TO
the termination av for ant, as ey voneav for eyvdntaoi, they have known
(John xvii, 7), and the insertion of the syllable oa in the third person
plural of some words, as edoXtovoav for edoXtovv, they deceived
(Rom. iii, 13).1
4. The heterogeneous use of nouns. Thus onorog, darkness is
Heterogeneous used iu tlae masculine and neuter genders; Xtyog, fam-
nouns. ine , and (3drog , bramble, in masculine and feminine.
We have the neuter plural in rd deoyd, the bands (Luke vm, 2y),*
and the masculine plural rovg deoyovg (Phil, i, 13), and eXeog, mercy ,
which is used as masculine by all classic Greek writers, is used as
neuter in the Septuagint and in the New Testament. Compare
Luke i, 50, 58; Rom. ix, 23; Jude 21, and (Septuagint) Gen. xix,
19; Num. xi, 15.
5. Peculiar forms of words, which passed down from ancient
New or peculiar dialects into the common language, or else were coined
forms of words. anew according to some previous analogy. Of this
class we have (1) among Nouns: aXenrog, a cock, a Doric or poetic
form for aXeitTQvdiv, onorta, darkness (Matt, x, 27; John vi, 17), for
oKorog; ohcodoyrj, building (1 Cor. iii, 9; xiv, 5; Eph. ii, 21), for
olnodoyrjya; yeroutea'ia, exile (Matt, i, 11), for yerouda, or ysroLicrjotg ;
yadr\TQia , a female disciple (Acts ix, 36), for yabrj-plg-, tzardXvya, a
lodging place (Luke ii, 7), for naraywytov; airrjya, a request (Phil,
iv, 6), for aX-r\Gig ; and many other nouns ending in ya, for which the
more classic language used the endings ?7, eta, and otg. (2) Among
Verbs we find a tendency to prefer the ending ow, as avanatvow, to
renew (2 Cor. iv, 16; Col. iii, 10), instead of dvanaivt^w; KQaratoto,
to become strong (Luke i, 80; ii, 40; Eph. iii, 16), instead of KQarvvu);
napoo), to sioeep (Luke* xv, 8), instead of oaipw; denar 6w to tithe
(Heb. vii, 6, 9), instead of denarev o>. Other Hellenistic forms are
6pi9p/Co>, to do anything early in the morning (Luke xxi, 38), instead
of OQdQev o); dfojd o), to grind (Matt, xxiv, 41), instead of aXe o);
vrjd o), to spin (Matt, vi, 28), instead of veto. (3) Among Adjec¬
tives we have dnelpaorog, not temptable (James i, 13) for aTrsiparog;
nadrjyeptvog, daily (Acts vi, 1), for nabrjyeQtog ; dgbgtvdg, early
(Luke xxiv, 22, and Text. Rec. of Rev. xxii, 16), for cghgiog ;
and (4) among Adverbs, e^antva, suddenly (Mark ix, 8), for i%an-
ivrjg-, navotni, with all one's house (Acts xvi, 34), for rravotnia, or
TTavoutrjoia.
6. Words either peculiar to the ancient dialects, or altogether
old dialects new. Of the former class are enrgwya, an abortion
and new words. Cor. Xv, g), an Ionic word, for which the Attics used
aypXwya, or e^ayl3Xwya; and yoyyv^w, to murmur (John vii, 32),
1 See many other rare forms in Winer’s Grammar, §§ 13, 14.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS. 123
and yoyyvayog, murmuring (John vii, 12; Acts vi, I), Ionic words
for which the Attics employed Tovdpvfa and rovOgvogoc;. New
words weie coined to express things which were unknown to the
ancient Greeks, and peculiar to the Jews or the New Testament
writers; as avtipundpea/cog, a man-pleaser (Eph. vi, 6; Col. iii, 22),
akkorpioeiriaKonop, an overseer of other people's matters (1 Peter
iv> 15)> apxiavvdyoyyog, ruler of the synagogue (Mark v, 35), eldwko-
'karpeia, iclol-worship (1 Cor. x, 14; Gal. v, 20), dwdeKdcpvkov, the
people of the twelve tribes (Acts xxvi, 7). Compare also the lexicons
on dvvayow, and evdwapoa, to strengthen, and PePrjkow, to profane.
7. A notable feature of the New Testament dialect consists in
the new significations given to words. To trace such
changes and modifications of meaning, and unfold the tiZ
development of biblical ideas, is the most difficult and words'
delicate task of the New Testament lexicographer. He must do
more than treat the varying forms of words; he must expound the
history of thought, and thus become, in the fullest sense, an exegete.1
An instance of a word acquiring a new signification may be seen
in evayyekiov , used in the ancient classic authors in the sense of
reward for good news given to the messenger; in Isocrates and
Xenophon it is used of sacrifice for a good message ; and still later
it came to signify the good message itself Thence it acquired in
the New Testament the special sense of the good news of salvation
in J esus Christ. So, too, the word napanakew was used in the an¬
cient Greek as meaning to call to, to call unto an assembly, or to
invite to an entertainment. But in the New Testament we find it
used for begging, comfortmg, and exhorting. The word elprjVTj,
peace , quiet, as contrasted with war and commotion, easily came to
be used of peace of mind, tranquillity. Then, in the Septuagint and
New Testament it took up and embodied the idea of well-being ,
welfare, as represented in the Hebrew Dife, and in connection with
X^pig and ekeog, grace and mercy, as in the salutation of the apos¬
tolical epistles, denotes the blessed state of soul-rest obtained by
remission of sin through Jesus Christ. So peace with God, in Rom.
v, 1, is the new and happy relationship between God and man
obtained through faith in the atonement of Christ.8
1 No modern -writer has done a greater service in this department than Dr. Hermann
Cremer, whose Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek is a rare monu¬
ment of learning and critical research, and indispensable to the hermeneutics of the
Christian Scriptures. For extensive illustration of New Testament words in their
depth and fulness of meaning, see this Lexicon on the words /?a7m£«, ovofia , ovpavog ,
nicrrig, ay Log, per aval u, Koopog , Taireivog, ayairuu, and dyuirij.
3 A like development or modification of meaning may be traced in the words cnroKpL-
vo, avaTTiTTTu, dv&KELpai , evxapioreo), nrupa, etc.
124
INTRODUCTION TO
“It would have been impossible,” observes Bleek,1 “to give ex¬
pression to all the religious conceptions and Christian ideas of the
New Testament, had the writers strictly confined themselves to the
words and phrases in use among the Greeks, and with the significa¬
tions usually attached to them. These Christian ideas were quite
unknown to the Greeks, and they had never formed phrases suitable
to give expression to them. On the other hand, most of these
ideas and conceptions already existed in germ in the Old Testa¬
ment, and were more or less familiar to the Jews by means of ap¬
propriate designations. Hence they would be best expressed for
Greek-speaking Jews in the words by which they had been ren¬
dered in the Septuagint. These expressions would naturally be
chosen and spread by those teachers who were of Jewish extraction
and education, and would, of course, be adopted generally to denote
Christian ideas. Many of these expressions had been ordinary Greek
words, whose meanings had been made fuller and higher when
applied among the Jews to religious subjects, and which retained
these meanings when adopted by the Christian Church, or were
again modified and further elevated, just as the ideas and conceptions
of the Old Testament revelation were modified and elevated by
Christianity. Hence it frequently came to pass, that when a Greek
word in its ordinary signification corresponded with a Hebrew or
Aramean word, the derived and developed meanings attaching to the
latter would be transferred to the former, and the Greek word would
be used in the higher sense of the Hebrew or Aramean word, al¬
though this meaning had before been unknown to Greek usage.” 2
8. It remains for us to notice more especially the Hebraisms of
the New Testament language, that transfer of Hebrew
Hebraisms. pRoms and forms of expression into Greek, which Attic
purity and taste would at once pronounce corruptions or barbarisms.
Winer has shown that most of the older writers on this subject have
included in their list of Hebraisms many expressions which are not
unknown to the Greek prose writers, or are the common property
of many languages. He distinguishes two kinds of Hebraisms in the
New Testament, the perfect and the imperfect. Perfect Hebraisms
include those words, phrases, and constructions which are strictly
peculiar to the Hebrew or Aramean, and were transferred directly
thence into the Hellenistic idiom. Imperfect Hebraisms are all
those words, phrases, and constructions, which, though found in
1 Introduction to the New Testament. Eng. translation, by Urwick ; pp. 72, 73.
3 See abundant illustration of this in such words as Xpiaroc, Christ ; irvevpa, spir¬
it ; Xoyo?, word; ourr/pla , salvation ; airuAeia, destruction ; /cA^rof, called; hwhTjaia,
church ; diKaioavvT], righteousness.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS. 125
Greek prose writers, have been in all probability introduced direct¬
ly from the Hebrew.1
(a) Not only were Hebrew or Aramaic words literally adopted
Into the New Testament Greek (like ’A/J/Jo, Ar. N2K,
Father , Mark xiv, 36, Rom. viii, 15; boavva,' Heb! Words-
W-njr^n, Hosanna, save now , John xii, 13 ; Xarav, Heb. ]W, Satan,
2 Cor. xii, 7 ; oUepa, Heb. strong drink, Luke i, 15), but Greek
woicls weie made to represent distinctively Hebrew conceptions;
as pi)fia, word, in the broad and indefinite sense of the Heb. “im,
thing, matter, affair. So in Luke ii, 15: to prjpa rovro rd yeyovog,
this thing that has come to pass. The Greek word onXdyXva, bowels,
takes, in the New Testament, the sense of tender affection, sympathy;
from the common usage of the Heb. OWl. Hence the verbal form
or XayxyL^opai, to have compassion.
(b) Then there are numerous forms of expression which are
traceable directly to the Hebrew; as tyrelv rrjv 'ipvxrjv, Forms of ex_
Heb. Harris £>$2, to seek the life of any one (Matt, ii, 20 ; pression.
Rom. xi, 3) ; Xapfidveiv npoownov, Heb. D'JS NKO, to accept the
person, that is, to lift his face, or show partiality (Luke xx, 21; Gal.
ii, 6) ; ri'deodaL ev rzj napdip, Heb. 2^2 to place or lay up in the
heart (Luke i, 66; xxi, 14; Acts v, 4); oropa paXalpag, Heb. 2nrra,
mouth of the sword (Luke xxi, 24; Heb. xi, 34); Kai eyevero very
frequently for W, and it came to pass.
(c) The New Testament Greek has also appropriated sundry gram¬
matical constructions peculiar to the Hebrew. (1) Many Grammatical
verbs are followed by prepositions governing the ac- constructions,
cusative or dative, where, in classic Greek, the verbs alone govern
without a preposition. Compare the New Testament use of the
words npootcvveu), to worship; <f>evyw, to flee; bpoXoyew, to confess.
(2) The particle si is used in expressing a negative oath after the
form of the Hebrew DX, if. “I swore in my wrath if they shall
enter into my rest” (Heb. iii, 11). That is, they shall not enter.
Compare Mark viii, 12. (3) The verb npoorl'drjpi is used, like the
Hebrew P]CP, with another verb, to denote additional action: “He
added to send another servant” (Luke xx, 11). “He added (i. e.,
proceeded) to take Peter also” (Acts xii, 3). (4) An imitation of
the Hebrew infinitive absolute is apparent in Luke xxii, 15: emdvpla
em^vfirjoa, “with desire I desired to eat this passover.” That is,
I longingly, or earnestly, desired. John iii, 29: xatpei, “with
joy he rejoices;” he greatly rejoices. Acts iv, 17: diretTfi aTreiXriow-
peda, “with threatening let us threaten them.” (5) In Rev. vii, 2
we note the pleonastic use of the pronoun in imitation of a well-
1 See Winer, Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, § 3.
126
INTRODUCTION TO
known use of the Heb. : olg edodrj avrolg, “ to whom it was given
to them. Compare also the adverbial relative in Rev. xii, 14: onov
rgecperai, efcel, “ where she is nourished there Df ■ • •
(6) The Hebrew use of nouns in the genitive as substitutes for the
kindred adjective is very common : as, Xoyoi rrjg Xd9Lr0S> words °f
grace , for gracious words (Luke iv, 22) ; atcevog efcXoyrjg, vessel of
choice , for chosen vessel (Acts ix, 15); “the power of his might, for
his mighty power (Eph. i, 19); steward of unrighteousness and
Mammon of unrighteousness (Luke xvi, 8, 9), for unrighteous stew¬
ard and unrighteous Mammon / and judge of unrighteousness (Lime
xviii, 6), for unrighteous judge. Sometimes these genitive forms
yield a profound significance, as in Eph. i, 18: “The riches of the
glory of his inheritance in the saints,” where it would take much
from the force of the expression to say, “ His rich and glorious in¬
heritance,” or “ His gloriously rich inheritance.”
The New Testament Greek has also some peculiarities of syntax,
of which, however, it is unnecessary here to treat. The Hellenistic
writers naturally preferred short sentences, after the manner of the
Hebrew. But every student will observe the differences of style
„ . , among: the New Testament writers. The Pauline epis-
Varieties of style 6_ . . , , ,
in New Testa- ties exhibit a more involved and polemic style than
ment writers. any other portions of the Christian Scriptures. But
these differ noticeably among themselves. The Thessalonian epis¬
tles have a natural and easy flow, but the prophetic portions, espe¬
cially 2 Thess. ii, have peculiarities of their own. In the Epistles
to the Romans and Galatians we notice the marked argumentative
style as contrasted with the more familiar tone and didactic straight¬
forwardness of the pastoral epistles. The Corinthian epistles have
an air of freedom and authority which is not so apparent in Ephe¬
sians, Philippians, and Colossians, the epistles of Paul’s imprison¬
ment. The Epistle to the Hebrews is written in a purer Greek,
and has a beauty and flow of style quite in advance of the epistles
acknowledged to be Pauline. The Epistle of James is noted for
the exceptional purity and elegance of its language, and Luke,
“the beloved physician,” vTho was probably not a Jew by birth
(Col. iv, 11, comp, verse 14), writes a more classic Greek than any
other of the evangelists. The Gospel and Epistles of John have
numerous peculiarities of diction; simple and childlike forms of
expressing most elevated and profound spiritual conceptions; but
the Apocalypse is the most Hebraistic in thought and language of
all the New Testament books.1
1 On the linguistic peculiarities of the different New Testament writers, comp. Im-
mer, Hermeneutics of the New Testament, pp. 132-144.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
127
It will not be difficult for any one to perceive that Hellenistic
writers, familiar with the prophetic language of the Old Testament,
would be likely to transfer its bold and vivid imagery into their
Greek, especially when they themselves were writing prophecy.
When Isaiah portrays the coming doom of Babylon, he sees all
nature in convulsion. “ Behold, the day of Jehovah comes, cruel,
and wrath, and burning of anger. ... For the stars of the heavens
and their constellations shall not shed forth their light; dark has
the sun become in his going forth, and the moon will not cause her
light to shine” (Isa. xiii, 9, 10). Compare also chap, xxiv, 19-23;
xxxiv, 1-10; Nahum i, 3-6. The celebrated passage in Rom.
viii, 19-23 is truly Hebraic in the vividness of its metaphorical con¬
ceptions. The whole creation is represented as groaning, hoping,
willing, and looking eagerly for the revelation (anorcdXv'ipiv) of the
sons of God. We need not wonder, therefore, that in such pro¬
phetic passages as the twenty-fourth of Matthew, and the Apoca¬
lypse of John, we have the spirit and imagery of the Old Testament
predictions reproduced, and the language of the Greeks employed
in forms and symbols such as it had never previously used. The
Hebrew spirit of prophecy was thus inbreathed into Grecian speech.
If there may be seen any divine purpose, or any special signifi¬
cance, in the use of the Hebrew and Chaldee tongues to Greek the most
embody the Old Testament revelation, there was also a suitable lan-
J , . . , . guage for the
reason for clothing the Christian revelation in the Ian- ciiristianscrip-
guage of the Greeks. The Law and the Prophets were tures"
designed especially for the sons of Abraham, a chosen and peculiar
people ; but the New Testament revelation was for the world. The
miracle of tongues on the day of Pentecost was prophetic, indicat¬
ing that the new word, then first speaking publicly to the world,
would make itself heard in all the living languages of men. Par-
thians and Medes and Elamites, and those that inhabited Meso¬
potamia, Judea, and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and
Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and stran¬
gers of Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians
(Acts ii, 9-11) heard with amazement that first preaching of the
Gospel, for they heard them speaking “ every one in his own dia¬
lect” (elg enaoTog ry Idea diaXetcro), ver. 6.) These were all devout
Hellenists, then sojourning in Jerusalem (ver. 5); and in all the
provinces of the empire from which they came Greek was the com¬
mon dialect. Besides their own vernacular, these Hellenists under¬
stood and spoke the language of the Greeks. What more fitting,
then, than that the new Gospel should embody its written records
in this most nearly perfect and universal language of that age?
128
INTRODUCTION TO
“The Jews require signs” ( observes the most erudite
writer of the New Testament, “but the Greeks seek for wisdom”
( cotyiav , 1 Cor. i, 22). As if to meet these proclivities, the Old
Testament has been set forth in a hieroglyphic language of the
early world, in which every letter is a sign or picture of something
visible; while the New Testament is written in the historic lan¬
guage of aesthetic culture and philosophy. The tongue of the
versatile Hellenes was peculiarly suited to express and preserve for
all nations the Gospel of the power and wisdom of God (1 Cor.
i, 24), which was destined to overthrow Judaism, and confound the
boasted wisdom of the world.
We may well believe, then, that the use of Hebrew, Chaldee,
and Greek, as the original languages of the Scriptures, was no mere
accident of history, but a particular providence, grounded in
highest wisdom. The fact that they have all ceased to be living
languages since the inspired records they embody came to be
recognized as a sacred trust, is truly significant. The means
of ascertaining and illustrating the sense of these records are
ample; and the divine oracles thus abide, sanctified and set apart
in well-known forms of speech which can never again be disturbed
by linguistic changes or the revolutions of empire. The Hebrew,
like the temple at Jerusalem, will be studied as a wonder of the
world. The temple’s great and costly stones, its unique architec¬
ture, and divine plan and purpose — in all essentials a copy of the
pattern shown to Moses in the mount of God (Exod. xxv, 40) —
held notable analogy with the unique and expressive forms of He¬
brew speech, in which words stand forth as sacred symbols, and
grammatical constructions are made to suggest profoundest concep¬
tions of the holiness of God and the redemption of mankind. The
Chaldee chapters of Daniel and Ezra are like the monumental
slabs from the ruined palaces of Babylonian and Persian kings —
imperishable witnesses that God once spoke to those mighty na¬
tions, and, when they were in highest power and pomp, and Israel
in exile and humiliation, foretold their utter ruin, and the certain
triumph of truth and righteousness in the kingdom of the God of
heaven. The Greek language, like the famous Parthenon at
Athens, breathes a marvellous expressiveness, and abounds in mod¬
els of beauty. But in its Hellenistic style and New Testament
form we admire the divine wisdom, the deep philosophy, and the
practical judgment, which appropriated the common dialect of a
world-wide civilization, and consecrated its potent formulas of
thought to preserve and perpetuate the Gospel.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
129
CHAPTER VII.
TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
Biblical Criticism is a term which has often been applied to the
critical treatment of nearly all topics that come under
the head of Biblical Introduction, such as questions of fo we rJ A ti¬
the date and authorship of the sacred books, and also dsm*
of interpretation itself. This use of the term is more definitely
known as the Higher Criticism. The other and more proper sense
is that which restricts it to the critical labours which aim to restore
the original texts of the Bible. This usage of the word is often
called the Lower Criticism. It treats the forms and order in which
the books of the Bible have been arranged, the history, condition,
and relative value of the ancient manuscript copies, and the differ¬
ent printed editions of the original texts. It collates and compares
ancient manuscripts, versions, and quotations, and lays down rules
and principles by which to detect corruptions and determine the
genuine reading.
It frequently occurs that the interpretation of a passage of Scrip¬
ture is so far involved in a question of textual criticism The interpreter
that the critical treatment of the text is essential to the needs als0 10
acompetent
exposition. Especially is this true in the case of texts textual critic,
so doubtful that the ablest critics differ in judgment as td the gen¬
uine reading. An exegete who proceeds with the explanation of
such a doubtful passage, utterly ignoring or indifferent to the un¬
certainty of the text itself, exhibits himself as an untrustworthy
guide. The competent interpreter of Scripture is supposed to be
thoroughly versed in the history and principles of textual criti¬
cism, and it is proper that in this Introduction to Biblical Her¬
meneutics we devote a brief chapter to this subject. Our space
and the purpose of this volume will allow us only to present the
leading principles and canons.1
1 On the subject of Textual Criticism see Davidson, Biblical Criticism (2 vols., Edin¬
burgh, 1852), and Revision of the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament (London, 1855) ;
Strack, Prolegomena Critica in Vet. Testamentum Hebraicum (Lps., lSVS); F. H.
Scrivener, Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (Second Ed.,
Cambridge, 1874); Horne, Introduction to the Holy Scriptures, vol. ii, pp. 1-112 (Ayre
& Tregelles’ Ed!, 4 vols., Lond., 1862); Tregelles, Account of the Printed Text of the
9
130
INTRODUCTION TO
In all ancient writings which have come down to ns in a great
Causes of vari- number and variety of manuscripts, we find a multi-
ous readings. tu(je 0f various readings. These have arisen maituy
through the carelessness of transcribers; but, in some instances,
perhaps, through design. Copyists accidentally confounded similar
words, and sometimes transposed, repeated, or omitted letters and
words. Some of the ancient manuscripts contained marginal notes,
and in copying from these the glosses were incorporated in the
text. Sometimes the text was purposely amended by a scribe,
who thought he could improve it. A difficult or obscure word was
exchanged for an easy one. A rough passage was made smooth,
and sometimes a difficult clause or sentence was entirely omitted.
Sometimes dogmatic and party purposes led to the wilful corrup¬
tion of the text. Thus originated the famous interpolation of the
three witnesses in 1 John v, 7. Sometimes the manuscripts used in
translation were themselves imperfect, and so errors would be likely
to multiply in proportion to the number of manuscripts.
The sources from which the genuine readings .are to be deter¬
mined are mainly ancient manuscripts, ancient ver-
meansof Text- sions, and scriptural quotations found in the works of
uai Criticism. ancient writers. Parallel passages and critical conjec¬
ture may also be resorted to where other helps are doubtful. The
received text of the Old Testament is commonly called the Maso-
retic, from the system of vowel points and the critical notes ap¬
pended to it by the so-called Masoretes, or Jewish critics. After
the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, and the consequent
dispersion of the Jews, many learned rabbins continued the culti¬
vation of their national literature. A celebrated school was founded
by them at Tiberias, on the coast of the Sea of Galilee, and con¬
tinued until the sixth century. The learned critics of this school
compiled a collection of the critical and grammatical observations
of the great teachers, and called it the Masorah. A most important
part of their work was the preparation of the Keris ('ip, to be read, ,
as distinguished from the TAS, that which is written; i. e., the writ¬
ten text), or marginal readings, which these critics probably gath¬
ered from manuscripts or tradition, and preferred to the reading of
the received text of their day. So scrupulously careful were the
Masoretes of every word and letter of the sacred text, that they at¬
tempted no changes in it, but wrote in the margin that which in
their judgment should be read. All the ancient copies used by these
Greek New Testament (Lond., 1854). See also the introductions to the critical edi¬
tions of the Greek Testament by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, and West-
cott and Hort.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
131
critics seem to have perished, and the later manuscripts, hundreds
of which have been collated by Kennicott and De Rossi, have little
value for the emendation of the Old Testament text. Hence little
has been attempted in this line within the last hundred years. The
ancient versions and critical conjecture are the principal means of
revising the Hebrew text, and such means are always to be used
with the greatest caution.1
For the criticism of the New Testament text we have more abun¬
dant materials. There are, first, the uncial manuscripts, written
in Greek capitals, and without any separation of words. This was
the most ancient form of writing, and prevailed until the tenth
century. Next we have the cursive manuscripts, existing in the
form of writing which came into use in the latter part of the ninth
century, and soon afterward became the common style. The three
most ancient and valuable uncials are the so-called Sinaitic, the
Alexandrian, and the Vatican, usually designated, respectively, k,
A, and B. Several of the cursive manuscripts are of great value,
having evidently been copied from very ancient exemplars. Next to
these ancient manuscripts are the early versions of the New Testa¬
ment, especially the Latin and the Syriac, the oldest of which be¬
long, probably, to the second century. The quotations from the
New Testament, found in the writings of the early Church Fathers,
are also often of great value in determining the original text.
These different sources of evidence have to be classified, their rela¬
tive value critically estimated, and reliable rules and principles
agreed upon for their use. In order to appreciate properly that
vast amount of labour which has in recent years restored to us an
approximately pure and trustworthy text of the Greek Testament,
one needs to make himself familiar with the lives and works of the
great critics Mill, Bentley, Bengel, Wetstein, Griesbach, Lachmann,
Tischendorf, and Tregelles.
The principal Canons of Textual Criticism now generally
accepted are divisible into two classes, external and internal,
and may be stated as follows :
External.
The canons of external evidence are concerned with the char¬
acter, age, and value of manuscripts, and the principles and rules
by which we are to compare and estimate the relative weight of
earlier and later copies, and of versions and quotations.
1 A critical edition of the Masoretic text of the several books of the Old Testament is
now in course of publication at Leipsic, under the editorial care of S. Baer and Fr. De-
litzsch. It furnishes much valuable material for the critical study of the Hebrew text.
132
INTRODUCTION TO
1. A reading which is supported by the combined testimony of
the most ancient manuscripts, the earliest versions, and patristic
quotations, is generally, without doubt, the genuine reading of the
original autograph.
This rule is so self-evident that it needs no comment ; and it is
an interesting and important fact that so great a part of the New
Testament rests upon evidence so decisive. Though the whole
number of various readings is more than a hundred thousand, by
far the greater part of them consist merely of differences of spelling,
and other slight variations chiefly due to the peculiar habits of the
different scribes. The doubtful readings which essentially affect
the sense are comparatively few, and those which involve questions
of important doctrine are less than a score.1
2. The authority and value of manuscript readings consist not in
the number of manuscripts in which a given reading is found, but
in the age, character, and country of the manuscripts.
Though, in some instances, we may suppose a cursive manuscript
has been copied directly from an uncial more ancient than any that
now exist, yet, as a rule, the uncials are older and more authorita¬
tive than the cursives. They are, therefore, more likely to repre¬
sent the oldest readings. Respecting the age and value of ancient
manuscripts, we owe great deference to the judgment of experi¬
enced critics. The opinion of men who, like Tischendorf and
Tregelles, have devoted a lifetime to conscientious study and col¬
lation of manuscripts, deservedly carries great weight. The eye
must be practiced to note the ancient forms of letters, and the
various methods of writing, abbreviation, and correction.
3. When the external evidence is conflicting and of nearly equal
weight, special importance should be attached to the correspon¬
dency between widely separated witnesses.
The concurrence of two ancient manuscripts, one belonging to
the East and the other to the West, would have more weight than
the agreement of many manuscripts which contain evidence of
1 The proportion of words virtually accepted on all hands as raised above doubt is
very great — not less, on a rough computation, than seven eighths of the whole. The
remaining eighth, therefore, formed in great part by changes of order and other com¬
parative trivialities, constitutes the whole area of criticism. ... We find that, set¬
ting aside differences of orthography, the words in our opinion still subject to doubt
only make up about one sixtieth of the whole New Testament. In this second esti¬
mate the proportion of comparatively trivial variations is beyond measure larger than
the former ; so that the amount of what can in any sense be called substantial varia¬
tion is but a small fraction of the whole residuary variation, and can hardly form more
than a thousandth part of the entire text. Westcott and Hort, The New Testament
in the original Greek. Introduction, p. 2. New York, 1882.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
133
having been copied directly from one another. The concurrence
of the Peshito, the Vulgate, and the Ethiopic versions is of great
weight in determining a doubtful reading. A quotation appear¬
ing in the same form in the writings of Origen, Jerome, and Iren-
seus would thereby acquire an authority tantamount to that of so
many of the most ancient and valuable manuscripts.
4. Great discrimination is necessary in the use of the different
classes of external evidence.
The reading found in one of the most ancient manuscripts is
usually to be preferred to that of any one of the ancient versions.
But there may be considerations of time or place which would ren¬
der the reading of a version more weighty than that of a single
manuscript. The authority of versions, also, would be greater in
the case of omissions or additions than in the matter of verbal
niceties. Patristic testimony, as observed above, depends for much
of its value on the place and circumstances of the writer. The
manner and purpose of a quotation may also affect its worth as a
witness to an ancient reading.
Internal.
It may often happen that the external evidence is so conflicting,
and yet so evenly balanced, that it is impossible from that source
alone to form any judgment. In such cases we resort to internal
or subjective considerations, wdiich, in many instances, afford the
means of forming a reasonable and reliable conclusion. But this
kind of evidence and critical conjecture are generally to be used
with the greatest caution, and only when the critic is obliged to
resort to such means from want of better evidence.
1. That reading which accords with a writer’s peculiar style,
with the context and the nature of the subject, and which makes
a good sense, is to be preferred to one which lacks these internal
supports. _
This, as a general rule, must commend itself to every one’s judg¬
ment. But particular applications of it may vary. There can be
no reasonable doubt that the true reading in John xiii, 24, is rig
eoTiv, who is it? The reading rig av eirj, who might it be? though
sustained by several ancient authorities, is especially to be rejected
because John never uses the optative mood. The placing of kfrX-
t9 ovreg after avrov in the textus receptus of Matt, xii, 14, is most
probably an error of some ancient copyist, and the reading eijeX-
dovreg de oi 0 clqlooZol ovfifiovXiov eXapov kclt ’ avrov (supported by
X, B, C, and D, and adopted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Westcott
and Ilort), is to be preferred because in similar constructions
134
INTRODUCTION TO
Matthew uniformly places the participle before its noun. Com¬
pare i, 24; ii, 3; iv, 12; viii, 10, 14, 18; ix, 4, 8, 9, 11, 19; xii, 25.
2. The shorter reading is to be preferred to the longer.
Transcribers were much more prone to add than to omit, and in
the obscurer passages their tendency was to incorporate marginal
glosses into the text, or even to venture upon an explanation of
their own. The words p) Kara oapKa nEpinarovoiv, aXXa Kara rcvEv\ia,
xoho toal/c not according to flesh, bat according to Spirit, in the textus
receptas of Rom. viii, 1, are wanting in most of the ancient authori¬
ties, and are doubtless an ancient gloss introduced from verse 4 of
the same chapter, where they appear in their true connection. So,
too, the words, “Verily I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable
for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city,”
found in the Alexandrian Codex at Mark vi, 11, was probably
added by some ancient scribe from memory of Matt, x, 15, where
the reading is “land of Sodom and Gomorrah.” According to this
rule, when the evidences in favour of the insertion or omission of a
word, clause, or sentence are about equally divided, it is safer to
omit than to insert.
3. The more difficult and obscure reading is to be preferred to
the plainer and easier one.
This rule of course applies especially to those passages where
there is reason to believe the transcriber was tempted to soften or
simplify the language, or explain an apparent difficulty. The word
tXerjgoovvrj, alms, was anciently substituted for the harsher Hebra¬
istic word diKaLoovvT) , righteousness , in Matt, vi, 1. The insertion
of the word ehcr], without cause, in Matt, v, 22, seems, in view of
the strong external evidence against it, to have been introduced to
soften the sentiment. Alford puts it in brackets, and says: “I
have not ventured wholly to exclude it, the authorities being so
divided, and internal evidence being equally indecisive. Griesbach
and Meyer hold it to have been expunged from motives of moral
rigourism; De Wette, to have been inserted to soften the apparent
rigour of the precept. The latter seems to me the more probable.”
Lachraann, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort omit the word, and
Tregelles marks it as extremely doubtful.
Under this head we would also place the well-known rule of
Griesbach: “That reading is to be preferred which presents a sen¬
timent apparently false, but which upon more careful examination
is found to be true.”1 A notable example is seen in 1 Cor. xi, 29,
1 Praeferatur aliis lectis, cui sensus subest apparenter quidem falsus, qui vero re
penitius examinata verus esse deprehenditur. Griesbach, Novum Testamentum Greece
(2 vols., London, 1809), vol. i, Prolegomena, p. lxvi.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
135
where the majority of ancient authorities have inserted the word
dva&wg, umoorthily, which appears in verse 27 in all copies. Four
of the most important uncial manuscripts, however (A, B, C,1 n1), and
several cursives and versions omit the word. Its insertion from
verse 27 appears to have arisen from misapprehending the exact
force of g?7 in the clause p? diattplvoiv to awya, which is here equiva¬
lent to when not, or if not, and therefore different from the strong¬
er and more simple negative ov. The apparently unqualified state¬
ment: “He that eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment unto
himself,” seemed to convey a false statement, and to remove the
difficulty dva&wg was inserted. The whole passage becomes clear
by a correct rendering of the qualifying clause, if not discerning
the body . More difficult is it to decide between the two readings
npwrog and vorspog, in Matt, xxi, 31 ; npwrog is sustained by the
greatest number of ancient authorities, and is suited to the context.
But vorepog is found in two of the most important manuscripts
(B and D), and is the more difficult reading. It is easier to see
how 7rp urog may have become substituted for varepog than the re¬
verse. Hence Lachmann, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort adopt the
reading varepog; but Tischendorf and Alford read ngtirog. From
this last example it will be seen what great caution is necessary in
the application of this rule, and also how a final decision may not
be possible in the case.1 * *
Under this canon it may also be added that, in parallel passages,
verbal differences are generally considered preferable to exact ver¬
bal conformity, inasmuch as transcribers are apt to harmonize such
differences where they attract attention.
4. That reading is to be preferred from which all the others
may be seen to have been naturally or readily derived.
“ That is to say,” says Gardiner, “ when there are different read¬
ings which have each of them important evidence in its favour, the
one from which the others could have been easily derived is more
likely to be true than one from which they could not have been.” 8
Under this rule it is claimed that og is the genuine reading in the
1 “ When no certainty is attainable,” says Tregelles, “ it will be well for the case to
be left as doubtful. ... A critical text of the Greek New Testament, with no indica¬
tions of doubt, or of the inequality of the evidence, is never satisfactory to a scholar.
It gives no impression of the ability of the editor to discriminate accurately as to the
value of evidence ; and it seems to place on a level, as to authority, readings which
are unquestionably certain, and those which have been accepted as perhaps the best
attested.” — Horne, Introduction (Ed. Ayre and Tregelles), vol. iv, p. 344.
2 The Principles of Textual Criticism, with a List of all the Known Greek Uncials,
in Bibliotheca Sacra for April, 1875. Also published as an Appendix to the Greek
Harmony of the Four Gospels by the same author.
136
INTRODUCTION TO
much-disputed text of 1 Tim. iii, 16. For a long time the Alexan¬
drian and Ephraem Syrus manuscripts (Ajmd C) were said to give
the reading tieog (written in uncials 00), but recent and thor¬
ough examination by the most competent critics has discovered that
the transverse line in the 0, and the sign of contraction, are the
work of a later hand. The Codex Sinaiticus has been tampered
with in this place by several later hands; the latest of all, accord¬
ing to Tischendorf, altered the manuscript about the twelfth cen¬
tury, but so carefully as not to deface the more ancient reading.
The Clermont manuscript (D), as is now conceded, originally read
o, but a later hand changed the reading to OC. This change was
done by erasing enough of the O to leave C, and then, as this letter
stood at the beginning of the line, 0 was easily placed before it.
The reading o may have arisen in the attempt of an ancient scribe
to correct what seemed to be a grammatical inaccuracy, and write
the relative o to conform with the gender of fivGTr\qiov. Or, a .Lat¬
in scribe may have so corrected the reading as to make it conform
to quod , which appears as the reading of the old Latin version. If
we suppose the original reading to have been 0C, it is difficult to
explain how the readings OC and O should appear in the most an¬
cient manuscripts; but, as shown above, it is not difficult to show
how the word OG may have been changed into OC or O.1
He who carefully studies and applies the above rules of textual
These canons criticism will observe that they are principles rather
ra^he^Than ^ian ru^es* They must not be applied mechanically, as
rules. if mere majorities of witnesses decided any thing. A
great number and variety of considerations must enter into the
formation of a sound critical judgment, and every element of evi¬
dence must be carefully weighed. “The point aimed at,” says
Tregelles, “ is a moral certainty, or a moral probability. To arrive
at this we must use the evidence that is attainable; the truest prin¬
ciples must be borne in mind which teach the proper estimation of
such evidence; and also the judgment must be exercised, so as to
be accustomed to draw the moral conclusions applicable to the sub¬
ject. It is thus that some critics possess that critical tact by
which they have been distinguished; they form a sound conclusion
without apparently going through any elaborate process of reason¬
ing. And this leads others to imagine that criticism is a kind of
intuitive faculty, although the conclusions have really resulted
from quickness in perceiving what the evidence is, and a well-exer¬
cised judgment in applying known principles to the evidence so
1 See an extensive and careful examination of the various readings of 1 Tim. iii, 16,
in the Bibliotheca Sacra for January, 1865, pp. 1-50.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
137
apprehended.” And the same consummate critic adds, in another
place: “He who rightly studies the principles and facts of the
textual criticism of the New Testament, will find that he has ac¬
quired information not on one subject merely, hut also on almost
all of those that relate to the transmission of Scripture from the
days of the apostles; he will have obtained that kind of instruction
which will impart both a breadth and a definiteness to all his bibli¬
cal studies; he will be led into a kind of unconscious connection
with the writers of Scripture and their works.” 1
CHAPTER VIII.
THE DIVINE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.
Our appreciation of the Holy Scriptures will necessarily be influ¬
enced by our views of their claims as divinely inspired. Critical
and exegetical study will be more or less serious and painstaking
as the student feels a deep conviction that he is handling the very
word of God.
There is an inspiration in all great works of genius. Those mas¬
terpieces of oratory, which, burning from the impas- inspiration of
sioned souls of Demosthenes and Cicero, aroused Athe- genius-
nian and Roman audiences, are to this day full of moving power.
The poems of Homer and the oracles of Socrates reveal the inspi¬
ration of genius. Passages in Shakspeare, Milton, and Byron ex¬
hibit a power of expression and a perfection of form which will
ever charm the minds of men. Who will deny Toplady’s “ Rock
of Ages” and Charles Wesley’s “Wrestling Jacob” a notable de¬
gree of divine inspiration ? But the great body of believers in the
Holy Scriptures have ever felt that the inspiration of the Bible is
something far higher and more divine than the rapture of human
genius.
The inspiration of genius is from within, that of the Holy Spirit
from without. The one is begotten of the human soul, Scrlpturein_
the other is by revelation from the supernatural and spiration high-
divine. The biblical writers themselves assume to write er*
by a supernatural authority; they speak as men who have seen the
visions of the Almighty, have heard the voice of the revealer of
secrets, and are moved by the power of the Holy Spirit. It may
1 S. P. Tregelles, Introduction to the Textual Criticism and Study of the New Testa¬
ment, in Horne’s Introduction (ed. Ayre and Tregelles), vol. iv, pp. 343, 401.
138
INTRODUCTION TO
be safely asserted that, in some sense, the sacred writers were used
mechanically; they were often employed as the media of words
and symbols which they could not comprehend. They were in¬
spired dynamically, for they were actuated by a supernatural force
and wisdom which supervised their work, and directed them so as
to secure the very purpose of the Almighty. In their inspiration
there was a verbal element, for God is represented as speaking by
“the mouth of all his prophets.” “Behold,” he says to Jeremiah
(i, 9), “I have put my words in thy mouth.” Paul claims to set
forth the saving truth of God “ not in words taught by human wis¬
dom, but in those taught by the Spirit ” (1 Cor. ii, 13). Every de¬
vout Christian will acknowledge that this inspiration was plenary,
inasmuch as it has furnished in all-sufficient fulness a revelation of
the mind and will of God. But when we attempt to say where the
divine element in Scripture ends, or where the human begins, we
involve ourselves in mysteries which no man is able to solve.
According to the evangelical faith, maintained by the Christian
Divine and hu- Church *n all ages, there exist in the sacred records
man in the two elements, a divine and a human. In this respect
there is a noteworthy analogy between the personal, in¬
carnate word, and the written word. As, in studying the person and
character of Christ, we most naturally begin with the human side,
observing that which is tangible to sense, so it will be well for us
to examine, first, the human lineaments of the written word of God.
It is evident that a considerable portion of the Bible is a narra-
Human eie- tive of facts which any ordinary mind might have gath-
the narration of ered fnd Put in written form. Such, for example, is
facts. the history of the rise, power, glory, decline, and fall of
the kingdom of Israel, as contained in the Books of Samuel, Kings,
and Chronicles. Many parts of these books appear to have been
compiled directly from pre-existing documents.1 The Book of NTe-
hemiah is an autobiography, and that of Esther a lively sketch of
court-life in the Persian Empire. In the preface to his gospel,
Luke professes to set forth an orderly arrangement of facts fully
believed among the earliest Christians, reported by eye-witnesses,
and accurately traced by himself from the very first. The Acts of
the Apostles, by the same author, is a simple narrative of the be¬
ginnings of the Christian Church. In these books especially, but
in others also, there appears no necessity or occasion for claiming
an extraordinary assistance for the writers. Many a writer, for
whom no such claim was ever made, has traced and recorded facts
1 Compare 1 Kings xi, 41 ; xiv, 29 ; xv, 31 ; 1 Chron. xxix, 29 ; 2 Chron. xwii
32, etc. ^
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
139
in human history with a painstaking care and accuracy as great as
the biblical narratives evince.
The human element is also noticeable in the style and diction of
the sacred writers. No one can fail to observe how
widely Isaiah differs in style from Jeremiah, Matthew styilS and°4i£
from John, and Paul from James. The distinct indi- tion*
viduality of each author is conspicuous, and there is no reason to
suppose that any of these writers were hindered in the freest exer¬
cise of their natural faculties, or in the normal use of their peculiar
modes of thought and expression. We should explain the marked
difference of style in the prayers of Daniel (chap, ix, 4-19) and
Habakkuk (chap, iii), the song of Moses (Exod. xv, 1-19), and the
Magnificat of Mary (Luke i, 46-55), as we explain the differences
between Milton’s “ Hymn of the Nativity” and Pope’s “Messiah,”
or between an exquisite passage of Addison and an oration of
Daniel Webster.
Other human lineaments are observable in the subject-matter,
where expression is given to the writer’s personal affec- seeninsubject-
tion for individuals, or to his sense of want and weak- matter,
ness. The whole catalogue of personal greetings in the sixteenth
chapter of Romans is an illustration of this; also the tender famil¬
iarity of Paul with his Thessalonian converts, and the personal
reminiscences of his first acquaintance (ii, 1), his departure (ii, 17,
18), and his being “left in Athens alone” (iii, 1). The human ele¬
ment is conspicuous in his defence of his apostleship m the first two
chapters of Galatians, in his remembrance of the Philippians’ kind¬
ness (Phil, iv, 15-18), in his messages to the Ephesians by Tychi-
cus (Eph. vi, 21), and his desire for the books, parchments, and
cloak left at .Troas (2 Tim. iv, 13). He exhibits, also, some doubt
and hesitation as to whether, at Corinth, he baptized any others
besides Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanas (1 Cor. i,
14, 16), and in his Second Epistle to the Corinthians he writes: “In
lack of wisdom I speak” (2 Cor. xi, 21); “as one beside himself I
say it ” (ver. 23) ; “I am become a fool; ye compelled me ” (xii, 11).
To the above instances we may also add the varying forms of
statement under which the same thing is reported to us geeninvarylnff
by different writers. Observe the numerous verbal forms of state-
differences in the parable of the sower as reported by ment‘
Matthew (xiii, 4-9), Mark (iv, 3-9), and Luke (viii, 5-8); or in the
parable of the mustard seed (Matt, xiii, 31, 32; Mark iv, 30-32 ; Luke
xiii, 18, 19), and in numerous other sayings of our Lord. Compare,
especially, the different forms of the Lord’s Prayer (Matt, vi, 9-13;
Luke xi, 2-4), and of the language used in instituting the Lord’s Sup-
140
INTRODUCTION TO
per (Matt, xxvi, 26-29; Mark xiv, 22-24; Luke xxii, 19, 20; 1 Cor. xi,
23-25). The only rational and truly satisfactory way of explaining
such verbal discrepancies is to hold (what seems so apparent and
natural) that the writers freely reported, each in his own indepen¬
dent way, the substance of what the Lord had said. The Lord had
probably spoken in Aramaic, but his words are reported in Greek.
So, perhaps, no one of the evangelists has given us the exact form
of the title on the cross; but each one records its substance and
purport in a different form of words (Matt, xxvii, 37; Mark xv, 26;
Luke xxiii, 38; John xix, 19). In all these varying reports there
is no error, no real discrepancy; but simply that variety of human
expression which is common to all the languages of men.
But, along with the human element in the Scriptures, there are
Evidences Of also the claim and the evidence of a divine inspiration,
divine element. Paul says: “All Scripture is God-breathed” ($£67r-
vevarog, 2 Tim. iii, 16), and Peter writes: “For not by the will of
man was prophecy ever brought, but, borne along by the Holy
Spirit, men spoke from God” (2 Peter i, 21). Here is a most im¬
portant assertion. He declares in the verse preceding that “no
prophecy of Scripture comes of its own interpretation,” or springs
out of the human understanding.1 The Scripture prophecies are
no products of human invention or ingenuity, for the men who
Peter’s deciar- wrote them “ spoke from God,” as they were impelled
ation. or carried along (< pepdfievot ) by the divine power. In
his first epistle the same apostle tells how the prophets diligently
sought and searched (e^rjrrjoav aal e^p avvrjaav) concerning salva¬
tion, “ searching into what time or what manner of time the Spirit
of Christ in them was signifying when he testified beforehand the
sufferings pertaining to Christ and the glories after them; to whom
it was revealed that not to themselves, but to you they were minis¬
tering that which is now announced to you through those who
preached you the gospel by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven”
(1 Peter i, 11, 12). We should observe the following four things
here affirmed: (1) the prophets were actuated by the Spirit of
Christ; (2) they did not fully comprehend the time-limits of their
own oracles; (3) they were given to understand that their words
would minister help to after times; (4) the first preachers of the
JThe reference is, as Lumby observes, “to prophecy as it was uttered by those
who first gave it forth. It did not arise from the private interpretation of the proph¬
ets. The words of the prophets of old were no mere human exposition, no endeav¬
our on man’s part to point to a solution of the difficulties which beset men’s minds
in this life. The prophets were moved by a Spirit beyond themselves, and spake
things deeper than they themselves understood.” — Speaker’s Commentary in loco.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
141
gospel were also actuated by the same Holy Spirit, and their mes¬
sages had heavenly origin and authority.
The Old Testament abounds in assertions of the divine origin of
its lessons and revelations. A large proportion of the 0]d Testament
Pentateuch is professedly Jehovah’s revelation of him- claims,
self to the patriarchs, or his express word of commandment to
Moses and to Israel. The Decalogue is said to have been uttered
by God’s own voice out of the midst of his theophany of fire and
cloud on Horeb (Exod. xix, 9; xx, 1, 19; Deut. v, 4, 22), and after¬
ward written by “the finger of God,” and delivered to Moses on
tablets of stone (Exod. xxxi, 18). The prophets continually an¬
nounce their messages as the word of Jehovah, and make frequent
use of the formulas, “Hear the word of Jehovah,” and “Thus saith
Jehovah.” Jesus recognized this same divine inspiration and au¬
thority in the Psalms; it was David speaking “in the
Spirit” (Matt, xxii, 43). And when he sent forth his Jesus words*
disciples, and foretold their persecutions, he comforted them with
these words: “ When they deliver you up, take no thought how or
what ye shall speak; for it shall be given you in that hour what ye
shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the spirit of your Fa¬
ther that speaks in you” (Matt, x, 19, 20). If such divine power
directed these founders of Christianity when they spoke before
their enemies, much more may we believe that the Scriptures writ¬
ten by them were inspired by God. For they had also the prom¬
ise: “The Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send
in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remem¬
brance all things which I said to you.” “He will guide you into
all the truth; for he- will not speak from himself, but whatever he
hears he will speak, and he will tell you the things to come. He
will glorify me; because he will receive of mine, and will tell you.
All things whatever the Father has are mine; therefore I said that
of mine he receives, and will tell you” (John xiv, 26; xvi, 13-15).
How they subsequently remembered the Lord’s words is told in
Luke xxiv, 8; John ii, 22; xii, 16; and Acts xi, 16; and the author¬
ity with which they spoke may be seen in Paul’s words to the
Thessalonians: “ When ye received the word of God heard from
us, ye received not the word of men, but, as it is in truth, the word
of God” (1 Thess. ii, 13).
In citing these declarations of the Scriptures, we assume, of
course, the divine origin of Christianity, and the au- CredibiIity of
thenticity and truthfulness of the Old and Hew Testa- the scriptures
ments. Our argument is not with the unbeliever and bere assumed*
the sceptic, but with those who accept both Testaments as in some
142
INTRODUCTION TO
sense the word of God; and our inquiry is concerned merely with
the nature and extent of their inspiration. This question must not
be judged and decided a priori. We need to look at facts of the
history, contents, and scope of the several parts, as well as ex¬
plicit declarations, of the Bible. With these constantly in mind,
and disregarding all special theories, we may be helped by the fol¬
lowing considerations :
I. God, from the beginning, planned to furnish for mankind such
a written testimony of his works, judgments, and will, as would
always be “ profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for
instruction in righteousness.” The grand purpose of all is, “ that
the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all
The whole Bi- g°od works” (2 Tim. iii, 16, 17). To fill out such a
bie God’s book plan and purpose required thousands of years. The
for man. record was to embody a revelation of the creation of
man, and of God’s gracious dealings and righteous judgments
through the lapse of ages. It was to be a record of prophecy and
its fulfilment, of miracle, and promise, and comfort. Truth and
righteousness were to be exhibited in the concrete by an ample
record of the experiences of holy men. Accordingly God spoke in
many parts and in many ways to the fathers by the prophets (Heb.
i, 1), and, at last, by the incarnation and ministry of Jesus Christ,
and by the apostles, completed the providential record of religious
truth and enlightenment. Thus the Bible is pre-eminently God’s
book, a body of writings providentially prepared by divine wisdom
for the religious instruction of mankind.
II. As regards the varied contents of this God-given book, it is
subject-matter we^> many recent writers,1 to distinguish between
revealed or m- revelation and inspiration. The subject-matter of many
parts of the Scriptures is of such a character as to lie
beyond the unaided powers of the human mind to discover. Such
portions must have been communicated in some supernatural way,
and were, therefore, from the nature of the case, a divine ’revela¬
tion. Inspiration, on the other hand, was the divine influence and
supervision under which the sacred writers made a record of what
came to their knowledge either by revelation or otherwise. “ Rev¬
elation and inspiration,” says Lee, “ are to be distinguished by the
sources from which they proceed, revelation being the peculiar
function of the eternal Word; inspiration the result of the agency
1 See, especially, Lee, on the Inspiration of Holy Scripture, Lectures i, iv, and v,
and E. P. Barrow’s articles on Revelation and Inspiration, in the Bibliotheca Sacra
for Oct., 186V, April, 1868, Jan. and July, 1869, Jan., July, and Oct., 18V0, Oct., 1871,
Jan., July, and Oct., 1872, and April, 1873.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
143
of the Holy Spirit. Their difference is specific, and not merely one
of degree, a point which is amply confirmed by the consideration
that either of these divine influences may be exerted without call¬
ing the other into action. The patriarchs received revelations,
but they were not inspired to record them; the writer of the Acts
of the Apostles was inspired for his task, but we are not told that
he ever enjoyed a revelation.” 1
It is easy to see that the narrative of creation could have been
furnished only in some supernatural way, for no human eye ob¬
served it. The visions and dreams of patriarchs and prophets were
modes of receiving divine communications (Num. xii, 6). Balaam
was so controlled by a supernatural force that he could utter no
word or will of his own (Num. xxii, 38; xxiii, 26; xxiv, 13). The
ten commandments were uttered by the voice (Exod. xx, 1, 19) and
written by the finger of God (Exod. xxxi, 1 8). Large portions of
the prophecies are expressly declared to be Jehovah’s oracles, and
foretell the things to come. The words of the Lord Jesus must be
accepted by every devout Christian as of absolute authority. But,
on the other hand, as we have shown above, large portions of the
Scripture are records of matters which the writers could have ascer¬
tained without supernatural aid. Yet we are told that all scrip¬
ture is inspired by God. The final question, then, is reduced to
the nature and degree of the inspiration.
III. On this point we affirm the proposition, that a particular
divine providence secured the composition of the Scrip- inspiration a
tures in the language and form in which we possess yf^^provi"
them. Moses at the beginning of the sacred volume, dence.
and John at its close, were commanded to avrite. The divine
reA'dations of which we have spoken would have been compara¬
tively useless unless divine Providence had secured an accurate
and faithful record of them to be transmitted through the ages.
For the preparation of such a record holy men were inspired of
God. Many revelations may have been given which are not re¬
corded, as Avell as many facts and experiences which Avould have
been profitable for religious instruction. But the Divine Wisdom
guided the human agents in selecting such facts and reporting such
truths as Avould best accomplish the purpose of God in providing a
written revelation for the world. We see no good reason for deny¬
ing that the divine guidance extended to all parts and forms of the
record. God secured the composition of the Pentateuch in just the
form and style in which Ave have it. He secured the writing of the
Book of Job for the great religious lessons it embodies. Half of it
1 Inspiration of Holy Scripture, Lecture i, p. 42.
144
INTRODUCTION TO
may be composed of tlie erroneous notions of self-conceited and
mistaken men; but it must be studied as a whole, and its several
parts, as bearing on the one great problem of human suffering,
will then appear as a most beautiful and impressive form of setting
forth certain lessons of divine providence and judgment. The
genealogies of Chronicles, Ezra, and other books, are similarly,
parts of a whole, and links in the history of Israel. So the histor¬
ical books, the Prophets, the Psalms, the Gospels, and the Epistles
subserve a manifold divine purpose. God has provided that these
books, and no others, should be written and preserved through the
ages as divinely authoritative for instruction in righteousness, and
to this end he called, actuated, energized, and supervised the holy
men who wrote them.
The notion that the Almighty Spirit absolutely controlled the
Divine inspi- sacred writers, so as to select for them the very words
language fland ^ley employed, is repugnant to the thoughtful mind,
style. There is no evidence, within or without the record, of
any such mechanical operation. But we conceive that the language
and style of a writer may be mightily affected by divine influences
brought to bear upon his soul. Such influences would produce im¬
portant effects in his thoughts and his words. To affirm, with
some, that God supplied the thoughts or ideas of Scripture, but left
the writers perfectly free in their choice of words, tends to con¬
fuse the subject, for it appears that the inspired penmen were as
free and independent in searching for facts and arranging them in
orderly narrative as they were in the choice of words. (Luke i, 3.)
It seems better, therefore, to understand that, by the inspiring im¬
pulse from God, all the faculties of the human agent were mightily
quickened, and, as a consequence, his thoughts, his emotions, his
style, and even his words, were affected. In this sense only we
affirm the doctrine of verbal inspiration. We have seen above,1
that form and style are often essential elements of an organic whole,
and to attempt to give the sentiment, without the form, of some
compositions, is to rob them of their very substance and life.2
1 See on pages 92-94.
2 Tayler Lewis remarks that “ the very words, the very figures outwardly used, yea,
the etymological metaphors contained in the words, be they ever so interior, are all in¬
spired. They are not merely general effects, in which sense all human utterances, and
even all physical manifestations, may be said to be inspired, but the specially designed
products of emotions supernaturally inbreathed, these becoming outward in thoughts ,
and these, again, having their ultimate outward forms in words and figures as truly
designed in the workings of this chain, and thus as truly inspired, as the thoughts of
which these words are the express image, and the inspired emotions in which both
thoughts and images had their birth.” And yet he repudiates “ that extreme view of
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
145
Four different kinds or degrees of inspiration are thus specified
by an English author : “ By the inspiration of sugges- Four
tion is meant such communications of the Holy Spirit o^inspSuon
as suggested and dictated every part of the truths de- su^ested-
livered. The inspiration of direction is meant of such assistance as
left the writers to describe the matter revealed in their own way,
directing only the mind in the exercise of its powers. The inspira¬
tion of elevation added a greater strength and vigour to the efforts
of the mind than the writers could have otherwise attained. The
inspiration of superintendency was that watchful care which pre¬
served generally from any thing being put down derogatory to the
revelation with which it was connected.”1 But, if God directly
suggests, directs, elevates, and superintends in any or all of these
ways, how can we consistently maintain that he was concerned
merely with the substance and not the form? Is it unworthy of
the God who observes the fall of every sparrow, and numbers all
the hairs of our heads (Matt, x, 29, 30), to care for the words and
forms in which his oracles are given to the world?
But while the particular words and style are essential elements
of some parts of Scripture, it should be observed Facts may be
that there are many facts and ideas which may be ex- exr)ressed a
pressed in a variety of forms. Thus, Jesus might have and forms,
said: “A certain man, in going from Jerusalem to Jericho, fell
among thieves;” or, “There was a man who went on a journey
from Jerusalem down to Jericho, and robbers fell upon him by the
way;” or, “In passing from Jerusalem down to Jericho a certain
traveller was assaulted by a band of robbers.” We might thus
vary the form and words of the statement in a score of ways, and
yet preserve substantially the same idea. But even in such matters
of little or no apparent moment, why deny that the supervising
Spirit aided in the selection of the particular language used by the
sacred writers?
It is possible to make some of the grandest truths appear ludi¬
crous by resolving them, through an artful analysis, Fallacioug trl_
into a multitude of frivolous details. It might be fling with de-
asked, Did the Almighty and Eternal God move the tailS*
muscles of Matthew’s arm and fingers, cause his heart to beat with
verbal inspiration which regards the sacred penmen as mere amanuenses, writing
words and painting figures dictated to them by a power and an intelligence acting in a
tnanner wholly extraneous to the laws of their own spirits, except so far as those laws
are merely physical or mechanical.” The Divine Human in the Scriptures, pp. 2V-30.
1 Bishop Daniel Wilson, on The Evidences of Christianity, vol. i, p. 508. Lond.,
1828.
10
146
INTRODUCTION TO
emotion, and his eyes to glow, as he took up his pen and scratched
upon the parchment before him? Did he move him to spell A avid,
or Aa/316; to write ovro), or ovtg)?; elne, or enrev, did rt , or 6idn\m
el ye, .or elyef Did he furnish him with black ink or red ink, pa¬
pyrus or parchment, a writing desk or the floor of a room? We
may thus trifle also with the minutiae of divine Providence, but,
after all our quibbling, we must either admit that the omniscient
Spirit was cognizant of all these details, or else say what particular
things escaped his oversight and care. The argument which main¬
tains the inspiration of the thoughts, but not the words, of Scrip¬
ture, logically denies any particular providence in the form and
style of God’s written word, and leaves the whole subject vague
and visionary.
The opinion that divine inspiration is incompatible with the free
action and varied style of the sacred writers seems to grow out of a
false psychology. Amid the complex sensations, perceptions and ac¬
tivities of the human soul there is room for the normal action of both
divine and human forces. The intellect and the affections may be
thoroughly subject to supernatural power, while the will remains free
in its self-conscious action. The divine inspiration of the sacred
writers no more interfered, necessarily, with their personal free¬
dom than the calling and anointing of Cyrus (Isa. xlv, i) interfered
No conflict be- with the conscious freedom and action of that mon¬
tween the di- arch Moses and Paul wrote with as much freedom
vine and hu¬
man. as Caesar and Bacon; but Moses and Paul were, in a
high and holy sense, chosen ministers to write a portion of the
Bible, and that holy calling and work put them in a position as
superior to Caesar, and Bacon, as the Pentateuch and the Epistles
are superior to the Gallic Wars and the Novum Organum. The
wisdom and power of God secured, without any violation of indi¬
vidual freedom, the writing of the Holy Scriptures in their orig¬
inal form, and preserved the writers from vital error. So the
Eternal Word was made flesh (John i, 14), but the divine nature
in the person of Christ did not set aside or nullify the perfect
human nature and freedom of the man Christ Jesus. This union
of the divine and human, whether in the incarnate word or in
the written word, is a great mystery, which no human mind can
fathom or explain. But as regards the inspiration of prophets
and apostles, we may affirm with Delitzsch: “The divine thoughts
take their way to the Ego of the prophet through his nature.
They clothe themselves in popular human language, according to
the prophet’s individual manner of thinking and speaking, and
they present themselves in a form manifoldly limited, according
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
147
to the existing circumstances and the horizon of contemporary
history.”
“ It is inadmissible,” he adds, “ to distinguish between real and
verbal inspiration ( inspiratio realis et verbalis). Sub- oeiitzsch’s
stance and form are both the effect of one divine act. view*
As the soul came into existence when God breathed the spirit into
man, so come into existence words of divine nature and human
form when God breathes thoughts into man. . . . The act of inspir¬
ation should, and must, be represented as an organic vital inter¬
working of the divine and human factor, without thereby jeopard¬
izing the infallibility of the revealed truth written in the Scripture,
and the faithfulness of the fundamental history of redemption con¬
tained therein for all times. . . . Scripture is no book fallen from
heaven; its origination is just as much human as divine. He who
is offended at this sins against the Holy Spirit, whose condescension
into humanity (by no means Docetic) he ought rather to admire
and praise.” 1
The fact that different writers vary in recording what purports
to be particular sayings is often urged as an argument Verbal varia_
against divine inspiration. The words of Jesus at the tions not a vai-
o 1 . Id argument
Last Supper, and the title on the cross, are cited as against divine
examples. But under all this argument is the tacit inspiration,
assumption that each of the writers is aiming to give the ipsissima
verba , whereas, in fact, no one of them has given the original
words. The ipsissima verba were Aramaic,2 not Greek; each
Hew Testament writer furnishes his own free and independent
version of them, and all report correctly the essential sentiment
of our Lord. Who is competent to say that these very differ¬
ences were not desired and directed by the Almighty Spirit? . Mat¬
thew was inspired to write the words, “Take; eat (xxvi, 26);
Mark to omit the word eat (xiv, 22) ; Luke to omit both these
words, and write, “ This is my body which for you is given ” (xxii,
19); and Paul to say, “This my body is, which is for you” (1 Cor.
xi, 24). The denial of a divine purpose in these verbal differences
seems to involve a distrust of a particular divine providence in the
peculiar style and form of the Scriptures of God. If we are not
able always to see a reason for such verbal differences, neither are
we competent to say that there was, and could have been, no
reason, and no care for them in the divine mind.
1 Biblical Psychology, part v, section 5. Comp. Elliott, A Treatise on the Inspira¬
tion of the Holy Scriptures, p. 257. Edinburgh, 1877.
a The very words of our Lord are, doubtless, given in such instances as Tali (ha
cumi (Mark v, 41), Ephphatha (vii, 34), liabhoni (John xx, 16).
148
INTRODUCTION TO
The thousands of various readings in the ancient manuscripts,
and the impossibility of deciding, in all cases, what is the true
various read- original text, are construed into an argument against
ings no valid ver^ai inspiration. If God took pains to influence the
against the ver- writers in the choice of words and forms of thought,
of1 thePirorig£ why has he not been caref ul t0 secure every word from
nais. corruption and change ? This question, however, as¬
sumes that God may never create a thing without miraculously
preserving it intact forever, a proposition which we see no good rea¬
son to affirm. It was probably no more necessary to preserve all
the words ever given by inspiration of God than to record all the
things which Jesus did (John xxi, 15); and we, therefore, deny
that the existing various readings afford any valid evidence that
the original autographs were not verbally inspired. We may add
that the denial of verbal inspiration logically diminishes one’s de¬
vout interest and zeal in the critical study of the Scriptures. It
takes away notable motives for anxiety to ascertain the exact
words of the original text, for if those words were not divinely in¬
spired we would naturally attach less importance to them.1
But the vast majority of readers of the Bible know nothing of
the original texts, and are dependent upon a translation ; of what
benefit, it is asked, is verbal inspiration to such readers ? But is
not every such dependent reader anxious to have the most faithful
translation possible? Why such care? Why have hundreds of
devout scholars combined to produce an accurate and trustworthy
version for the English-speaking world ? Does it not all spring
from a feeling that the original is divine, and the ultimate source
of all appeal? How irrelevant and fallacious is it, then, to talk of
versions? The question of inspiration is concerned solely with the
original texts. Moreover, if there was a divine plan and purpose
in having the Scriptures written in Hebrew, and Chaldee, and
Greek,2 the divine providence would be likely to have cared for
every jot and tittle of the same.
As for alleged discrepancies, contradictions, and errors of the
1 “ This theory,” says Gilbert Haven, “ cuts the nerves of minute study for the har¬
monizing of the Word. It is as fatal to sound scholarship as to sound doctrine.
That scholars and theologians advocate it is no proof of its real effects. They bring
with them to their investigation, not their theory, but the old, the divine feeling of
its entire and perfect sacredness. They worship at its shrine, they seek to know
its full meaning, its intended and real, if hidden, harmony. They are orthodox in
spite of their outer creed, by the inward culture of the soul in the elder and superior
truth.” Methodist Quarterly Review for 1867, p. 348. See also Haven’s two subse¬
quent articles in the same Review for 1868.
9 See above, pp. 106, 128.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
149
Bible, we deny that any real errors can be shown.1 But our doc¬
trine of divine inspiration is compatible with incorrect inaccurate
spelling, involved rhetoric, imperfect grammar, and in- grammar and
elegant language. The earthen vessels remain earth- style0 no1 * * * valid
en though filled with divine treasure. Confusion oblection-
of thought and obscurity of statement are no valid argument
against the inspiration of the Word. As some of God’s purposes
may sometimes be most effectually carried out by weak or igno¬
rant men, so the apparent defects, alleged of some portions of the
Scriptures, may have been divinely permitted among the definite
purposes of grace.9 A prophecy or an epistle written “ not with
excellency of speech or of wisdom ” — “ not with persuasive words
of man’s wisdom ” — may, nevertheless, contain a wisdom and excel¬
lence “ not of this world, nor of the rulers of this world, who come
to nought” (1 Cor. ii, 1, 4, 6). Faultless grammar and absolute
accuracy of statement were not essential to the best mode of set¬
ting forth all the lessons of redemption. No more was it essential
that the New Testament should be written in the classic elegance
and purity of ancient Attic Greek, The notion that divine inspira¬
tion is incompatible with obscurity of style and grammatical inac¬
curacy springs from an a priori judgment that God must needs
have given his infallible word in some absolutely perfect or super¬
natural form. But such a judgment has no foundation in nature or
in grace. God gave not his word in the tongues of angels, but of
men. “ God chose the foolish things of the world that he might put
the wise to shame; and God chose the weak things of the world that
he might put to shame the things which are strong; and the base
things of the world, and the things which are despised, did God
choose, and the things which are not, that he might bring to
nought things that are; that no flesh should glory before God”
(1 Cor. i, 27-29). How futile, then, are all a priori human judg¬
ments of the form in which God’s oracles should be cast ?
In the seventh chapter of Acts we have the celebrated address of
the proto-martyr Stephen. His face glowing like the Stephen,s ad„
face of an angel, and his impassioned soul full of the dress in Acts
Holy Spirit, he utters a rapid sketch of Israelitish his-
1 We devote a chapter, in the subsequent part of this work, to alleged discrepan¬
cies, and cannot enlarge upon them here. But comp, the article, Discrepancy and In¬
spiration not Incompatible, Journal of Sacred Literature for April, 1854, pp. 71-110.
2 How often has the personal Christian experience of an illiterate convert, uttered
in broken speech and stammering voice, but glowing with the ardour of deep convic¬
tions, proved more mighty to awaken sinful men, and lead them to repentance, than
the most finished sermons of many an eloquent preacher !
150
INTRODUCTION TO
tory. In verse 16 he speaks of the tomb at Shechem “ which
Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Lmmor, of
Shechem.” Here is, apparently, a confusion of thought, but one
which could do no possible harm, and did not hinder the speech
from cutting the hearers to the heart (verse 54). It seems to us
improbable that Stephen should have made such a blunder ; 1 2 but
there is no evidence that the text is corrupt; and who knows but
the Holy Spirit allowed him in his fervid eloquence to fall into this
confusion of facts in order to exhibit how irresistible plenary in¬
spiration is not conditioned “ in the wisdom of men, but in the
power of God” (1 Cor. ii, 5)?
We have no room to discuss the manifold collateral questions
connected with this theme, but have briefly presented the main
points, which show both the divine and the human in the written
Word. We adopt no technical theory, but indicate how all is di¬
vine, and all is human. For “all scripture is God-breathed.”
“Given by the divine mind,” says Tayler Lewis, “these holy
books must have in them a depth and fulness of meaning that the
human intellect can never exhaust. If they are holy books, if they
are Sucre® Scripture®, as even the neologist conventionally styles
them, then can there be thrown away upon them no amount of
study, provided that study is ever chastened by a sanctified, truth-
loving spirit that rejoices more in the simplest teaching, and in
the simplest method of teaching from God, than in the most lauded
discoveries of any mere human science. Is it in truth the word
of God — is it really God speaking to us? Then the feeling and
the conclusion which it necessitates are no hyperboles. We can¬
not go too far in our reverence, or in our expectation of knowl¬
edge surpassing in kind, if not in extent. The wisdom of the
earth, of the seas, of the treasures hidden in the rocks and all
deep places of the subterranean world, or of the stars afar off,
brings us not so nigh the central truth of the heavens, the very
mind and thought of God, as one parable of Christ, or one of those
grand prophetic figures through which the light of the infinite idea
is converged, while, at the same time, its intensity is shaded for the
tender human vision.” 3
1 It is not at all impossible that a purchase similar to that recorded of Jacob ({Jen.
xxxiii, 19) had been made long previously by Abram when he first arrived at She¬
chem, and found the Canaanite already in that land (Gen. xii, 6). An aboriginal
Hamor had probably already founded the city of Shechem, and was known as its fa¬
ther (comp. Judg. ix, 28).
2 The Divine Human in the Scriptures, pp. 25, 26.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
161
CHAPTER IX.
QUALIFICATIONS OF AN INTERPRETER.
In order to be a capable1 and correct interpreter of the Holy-
Scriptures, one needs a variety of qualifications, both natural and
acquired. For though a large proportion of the sacred volume is
sufficiently simple for the child to understand, and the common
people and the unlearned may find on every page much that is
profitable for instruction in righteousness, there is also much that
requires, for its proper apprehension and exposition, the noblest
powers of intellect and the most ample learning. The several
qualifications of a competent interpreter may be classified as Intel¬
lectual, Educational, and Spiritual. The first are largely native to
the soul ; the second are acquired by study and research ; the third
may be regarded both as native and acquired.
Intellectual Qualifications.
First of all, the interpreter of Scripture, and, indeed, of any other
book, should have a sound, well-balanced mind. For ^ , ..
dulness of apprehension, defective judgment, and an tai powers dis-
extravagant fancy will pervert one’s reason, and qualKy*
lead to many vain and foolish notions. The faculties of the mind
are capable of discipline, and may be trained to a very high degree
of perfection ; but some men inherit peculiar tendencies of intellect.
Some are gifted with rare powers of imagination, but are utterly
wanting in the critical faculty. A lifetime of discipline will scarce¬
ly restrain their exuberant fancy. Others are naturally given to
form hasty judgments, and will rush to the wildest extremes. In
others, peculiar tastes and passions warp the judgment, and some
seem to be constitutionally destitute of common sense. Any and
all such mental defects disqualify one for the interpretation of the
word of God.
A ready percej>tion is specially requisite in the interpreter. He
must have the power to grasp the thought of his an- Quick and clear
thor, and take in at a glance its full force and bearing, perception.
With such ready perception there must be united a breadth of view
and clearness of understanding which will be quick to catch, not
only the imjDort of words and phrases, but also the drift of the
1 Comp, the import of inavoi, luavoTjjg, and inuvucev in 2 Cor. iii, 5, 6.
152
INTRODUCTION TO
argument. Thus, for example, in attempting to explain the Epistle
to the Galatians, a quick perception will note the apologetic tone
of the first two chapters, the bold earnestness of Paul in asserting
the divine authority of his apostleship, and the far-reaching conse¬
quences of his claim. It will also note how forcibly the personal
incidents referred to in Paul’s life and ministry enter into his argu¬
ment. It will keenly appreciate the impassioned appeal to the
“ foolish Galatians ” at the beginning of chapter third, and the nat¬
ural transition from thence to the doctrine of Justification. The
variety of argument and illustration in the third and fourth chap¬
ters, and the hortatory application and practical counsels of the two
concluding chapters will also be clearly discerned ; and then the
unity, scope, and directness of the whole Epistle will lie pictured
before the mind’s eye as a perfect whole, to be appreciated more
and more fully as additional attention and study are given to min¬
uter details.
The great exegetes have been noted for acuteness of intellect, a
Acuteness of critical sharpness to discern at once the connexion of
intellect. thought, and the association of ideas. This qualifica¬
tion is of great importance to every interpreter. He must be quick
to see what a passage does not teach, as well as to comprehend its
real import. His critical acumen should be associated with a mas¬
terly power of analysis, in order that he may clearly discern all the
parts and relations of a given whole. Bengel and De Wette, in
their works on the New Testament, excel in this particular. They
evince an intellectual sagacity, which is to be regarded as a special
gift, an inborn endowment, rather than a result of scientific culture.
The strong intellect will not be destitute of imaginative power.
nSdednati°n Many in narrative description must be left to be
must6 be con- supplied, and many of the finest passages of Holy Writ
trolled. ^ cannot be appreciated by an unimaginative mind. The
true interpreter must often transport himself into the past, and
picture in his soul the scenes of ancient time. He must have an in¬
tuition of nature and of human life by which to put himself in the
place of the biblical writers and see and feel as they did. But it
has usually happened that men of powerful imagination have been
unsafe expositors. An exuberant fancy is apt to run away with
the judgment, and introduce conjecture and speculation in place of
valid exegesis. The chastened and disciplined imagination will as¬
sociate with itself the power of conception and of abstract thought,
and be able to construct, if called for, working hypotheses to be
used in illustration or in argument. Sometimes it may be expe¬
dient to form a concept, or adopt a theory, merely for the purpose
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
153
of pursuing some special line of discussion ; and every expositor
should be competent for this when needed.
But, above all things, an interpreter of Scripture needs a sound
and sober judgment. His mind must be competent to Sober judg_
analyze, examine, and compare. He must not allow ment-
himself to be influenced by hidden meanings, and spiritualizing
processes, and plausible conjectures. He must weigh reasons for
and against a given interpretation; he must judge whether his
principles are tenable and self-consistent; he must often balance
probabilities, and reach conclusions with the greatest caution. Such
a discriminating judgment may be trained and strengthened, and
no pains should be spared to render it a safe and reliable habit of
the mind.
Correctness and delicacy of taste will be the result of a discrimi¬
nating judgment. The interpreter of the inspired vol- Correctanddei-
ume will find the need of this qualification in discerning icate taste,
the manifold beauties and excellences scattered in rich profusion
through its pages. But his taste, as well as his judgment, must be
trained to discern between the true and the false ideals. Many a
modern whim of shallow refinement is offended with the straight¬
forward honesty and simplicity of the ancient world. Prurient
sensitiveness often blushes before expressions in the Scriptures
which are as far as possible removed from impurity. Correct taste
in such cases will pronounce according to the real spirit of the
writer and his age.
The use of reason in the interpretation of Scripture is every¬
where to be assumed. The Bible comes to us in the
j. P , Use of reason,
forms of human language, and appeals to our reason
and judgment; it invites investigation, and condemns a blind cre¬
dulity. It is to be interpreted as we interpret any other volume,
by a rigid application of the same laws of language, and the same
grammatical analysis. Even in passages which may be said to lie
beyond the province of reason, in the realm of supernatural revela¬
tion, it is still competent for the rational judgment to say whether,
indeed, the revelation be supernatural. In matters beyond its range
of vision, reason may, by valid argument, explain its own incom¬
petency, and by analogy and manifold suggestion show that there
are many things beyond its province which are nevertheless true
and righteous altogether, and to be accepted without dispute.
Reason itself may thus become efficient in strengthening faith in
the unseen and eternal.
But it behooves the expounder of God’s word to see that all his
principles and processes of reasoning are sound and self-consistent.
154
INTRODUCTION TO
He must not commit himself to false premises; he must abstain
from confusing dilemmas ; he must especially refrain from rushing
to unwarranted conclusions. Nor must he ever take for granted
things which are doubtful, or open to serious question. All such
logical fallacies will necessarily vitiate his expositions, and make
him a dangerous guide. The right use of reason in biblical exposi¬
tion is seen in the cautious procedure, the sound principles adopted,
the valid and conclusive argumentation, the sober sense displayed,
and the honest integrity and self-consistency everywhere main¬
tained. Such exercise of reason will always commend itself to the
godly conscience and the pure heart.
In addition to the above-mentioned qualifications, the interpreter
should be “apt to teach” (didatcrucog, 2 Tim. ii, 24).
Apt to teach. He mugt nQt Qnly be able tQ understand the Scriptures,
but also to set forth in clear and lively form to others what he
himself comprehends. Without such aptness in teaching, all his
other gifts and qualities will avail little or nothing. Accordingly,
the interpreter should cultivate a clear and simple style, and study
to bring out the truth and force of the inspired oracles so that
others will readily understand.
Geography.
Educational Qualifications.
The professional interpreter of Scripture needs more than a well-
balanced mind, discreet sense, and acuteness of intellect. He needs
stores of information in the broad and varied fields of history,
science, and philosophy. By many liberal studies will his faculties
become disciplined and strong for practical use ; and extensive and
accurate knowledge will furnish and fit him to be the teacher of
others. The biblical interpreter should be minutely acquainted with
the geography of Palestine and the adjacent regions.
In order to be properly versed in this, he will need to
understand the physical character of the world outside of Bible
lands. For, though the sacred writers may have known nothing of
countries foreign to Asia, Africa, and Europe, the modern student
will find an advantage in having information, as full as possible, of
the entire surface of the globe. With such geographical knowledge
he should also unite a familiar acquaintance with uni¬
versal history. The records of many peoples, both an¬
cient and modern, will often be of value in testing the accuracy of
the sacred writers, and illustrating their excellence and worth.
What a vast amount of light have ancient authors, and the deci¬
phered inscriptions of Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, and Persia, shed
upon the narratives of the Bible !
History.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS. 155
The science of chronology is also indispensable to the proper in¬
terpretation of the Scriptures. The succession of events,
the division of the ages into great eras, the scope of gen- Chronol°^-
ealogical tables, and the fixing of dates, are important, and call
for patient study and laborious care. Nor can the interpreter dis¬
pense with the study of antiquities, the habits, customs,
and arts of the ancients. He should inquire into the an- Anti<iuities-
tiquities of all the ancient nations and races of whom any records
remain, for the customs of other nations may often throw light
upon those of the Hebrews. The study of politics, in¬
cluding international law and the various theories and Politics*
systems of civil government, will add greatly to the other accom¬
plishments of the exegete, and enable him the better to appreciate
the Mosaic legislation, and the great principles of civil government
set forth in the New Testament. Many a passage, also, can be illus¬
trated and made more impressive by a thorough knowledge of natu¬
ral science. Geology, mineralogy, and astronomy, are Naturai set.
incidentally touched by statements or allusions of the sa- ence*
cred writers, and whatever the knowledge of the ancients on these
subjects, the modern interpreter ought to be familiar with what
modern science has demonstrated. The same may be said of the
history and systems of speculative thought, the various
schools of philosophy and psychology. Many of these PhlIosophy*
philosophical discussions have become involved in theological dog¬
ma, and have led to peculiar principles and methods of interpreta¬
tion, and, to cope fairly with them, the professional exegete should
be familiar with all their subtleties. We have already seen how
all-important to the interpreter is a profound and accu- The saCred
rate knowledge of the sacred tongues. No one can be a tongues,
master in biblical exposition without such knowledge. To a thor¬
ough acquaintance with Hebrew, Chaldee, and Greek, he should
add some proficiency in the science of comparative phi- comparative
lology. Especially will a knowledge of Syriac, Arabic, philology,
and other Semitic languages help one to understand the Hebrew
and the Chaldee, and acquaintance with Sanskrit and Latin and
other Indo-European tongues will cfeepen and enlarge one’s knowl¬
edge of the Greek. To all these acquirements the interpreter of
God’s word should add a familiar acquaintance with gen- General lit¬
eral literature. The great productions of human genius, erature.
the world-renowned epics, the classics of all the great nations, and
the bibles of all religions, will be of value in estimating the oracles
of God.
It is not denied that there have been able and excellent exposi-
156
INTRODUCTION TO
tors who were wanting in many of these literary qualifications.
But he who excels as a master can regard no literary attainments
as superfluous; and, in maintaining and defending against scepti¬
cism and infidelity the faith once delivered to the saints, the
Christian apologist and exegete will find all these qualifications in¬
dispensable.
Spiritual Qualifications.
Intellectual qualities, though capable of development and disci-
Partiy a gift, pline, are to be regarded as natural endowments; edu-
partiy acquired. cational or literary acquirements are to be had only by
diligent and faithful study; but those qualifications of an inter¬
preter which we call spiritual are to be regarded as partly a gift,
and partly acquired by personal effort and proper discipline. Under
this head we place all moral and religious qualities, dispositions,
and attainments. The spirit is that higher moral nature which
especially distinguishes man from the brute, and renders him capa¬
ble of knowing and loving God. To meet the wants of this spirit¬
ual nature the Bible is admirably adapted; but the perverse heart
and carnal mind may refuse to entertain the thoughts of God.
“ The natural man,” says Paul, “ does not receive the things of the
Spirit of God, for they are a folly to him, and he is not able to
know, because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor. ii, 14).
First of all, the true interpreter needs a disposition to seek and
Desire to know know the truth. No man can properly enter upon the
the truth. study and exposition of what purports to be the reve¬
lation of God while his heart is influenced by any prejudice against
it, or hesitates for a moment to accept what commends itself to his
conscience and his judgment. There must be a sincere desire and
purpose to attain the truth, and cordially accept it when attained.
Such a disposition of heart, which may be more or less strong in
early childhood, is then easily encouraged and developed, or as
easily perverted. Early prejudices and the natural tendency of
the human soul to run after that which is evil, rapidly beget habits
and dispositions unfriendly to godliness. “ For the carnal mind is
enmity against God” (Rom. viii, 7), and readily cleaves to that
which seems to remove moral obligation. “ Every one that does
evil hates the light, and comes not to the light lest his deeds should
be reproved” (John iii, 20). A soul thus perverted is incompetent
to love and search the Scriptures.
Tender affec- A pure desire to know the truth is enhanced by a ten-
tion- der affection for whatever is morally ennobling. The
writings of John abound in j>assages of tender feeling, and suggest
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS, 157
how deep natures like his possess an intuition of godliness. Their
souls yearn for the pure and the good, and they exult to find it all
in God. Such tender affection is the seat of all pure love, whether
of God or of man. The characteristic utterance of such a soul is:
“ Beloved, let us love one another; because love is of God, and
e\eiy one that loves has been begotten of God, and knows God.
. . . God is love; and he that abides in love abides in God, and God
in him” (1 John iv, 7, 16).
The love of the truth should be fervent and glowing, so as to be¬
get in the soul an enthusiasm for the word of God. Enthusiasm for
The mind that truly appreciates the Homeric poems the word-
must imbibe the spirit of Homer. The same is true of him who
delights in the magnificent periods of Demosthenes, the easy num¬
bers and burning thoughts of Shakspeare, or the lofty verse of Mil-
ton. What fellowship with such lofty natures can he have whose
soul never kindles with enthusiasm in the study of their works?
So the profound and able exegete is he whose spirit God has
touched, and whose soul is enlivened by the revelations of heaven.
Such hallowed fervour should be chastened and controlled by a
true reverence. “The fear of Jehovah is the begin- Reverence for
ning of knowledge ” (Prov. i, 7). There must be the God-
devout frame of mind, as well as the pure desire to know the
truth. “God is a Spirit; and they that worship him must worship
him in spirit and in truth” (John iv, 24). Therefore, they who
would attain the true knowledge of God must possess the rever¬
ent, truth-loving spirit; and, having attained this, God will seek
them (John iv, 23) and reveal himself to them as he does not unto
the world. Compare Matt, xi, 25; xvi, 17.
Finally, the expounder of the Holy Scriptures needs to have liv¬
ing fellowship and communion with the Holy Spirit. Communjon
Inasmuch as “all Scripture is God-breathed” (2 Tim. with the Holy
iii, 16), and the sacred writers spoke from God as they Spint*
were moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter i, 21), the interpreter of
Scripture must be a partaker of the same Holy Spirit. He must,
by a profound experience of the soul, attain the saving knowledge
of Christ, and in proportion to the depth and fulness of that expe¬
rience he will know the life and peace of the “ mind of the Spirit ”
(Rom. viii, 6). “We speak God’s wisdom in a mystery,” says
Paul (1 Cor. ii, 7-11), the hidden spiritual wisdom of a divinely
illuminated heart, which none of the princes of this world have
known, but (as it is in substance written in Isa. lxiv, 4) a wisdom
relating to “ what things (a) eye did not see, and ear did not hear,
and into man’s heart did not enter — whatever things (ooa) God
158
INTRODUCTION.
prepared for them that love him; for1 to us God revealed them
through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the
depths of God. For who of men knows the things of the man
except the spirit of the man which is in him ? So also the things
of God no one knows except the Spirit of Gjod.” He, then, who
would know and explain to others “ the mysteries of the kingdom
of heaven ” (Matt, xiii, 11) must enter into blessed communion and
fellowship with the Holy One. He should never cease to pray
(Eph. i, 17, 18) “that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Fa¬
ther of glory, would give him the spirit of wisdom and of revela¬
tion in the full knowledge (emyvcocjtg) of him, the eyes of his heart
being enlightened for the purpose of knowing what is the hope of
his calling, what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the
saints, and what the exceeding greatness of his power toward us
who believe.”
1 We follow here the reading of Westcott and Hort, who receive yap into the text.
This reading has the strong support of Codex B, and would have been quite liable to
be changed to the more numerously supported reading Si by reason of a failure to
apprehend the somewhat involved connection of thought. The yap gives the reason
why we speak God’s mysterious wisdom, for to us God revealed it through the Spirit.
PART SECOND
PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
We count it no gentleness or fair dealing, in a man of power, to require
strict and punctual obedience, and yet give out his commands ambiguously.
We should think he had a plot upon us. Certainly such commands were no
commands, but snares, dhe very essence of truth is plainness and brightness ;
the darkness and ignorance are our own. Qlhe wisdom of G-od created under¬
standing, ft and proportionable to truth, the object and end of it, as the eye to
the thing visible. If our understanding have a film of ignorance over it, or
be blear with gazing on other false glisterings, what is that to truth ? If we
will but purge with sovereign eye-salve that intellectual ray which God hath
planted in us, then we would believe the Scriptures protesting their own plain¬
ness and perspicuity , calling to them to be instructed, not only the wise and
the learned, but the simple, the poor, the babes ; foretelling an extraordinary
effusion of God’s Spirit upon every age and sect, attributing to all men and
requiring from them the ability of searching, trying, examining all things, and
by the Spirit discerning that which is good. — Milton.
PRINCIPLES
OF
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
CHAPTER I.
PRELIMINARY.
The Principles of Biblical Hermeneutics are those governing laws
and methods of procedure by which the interpreter de-
termmes the meaning of the Holy Scriptures. These principles de¬
principles are of the nature of comprehensive and fun- fined'
damental doctrines. They become to the practical exegete so many
maxims, postulates, and settled rules. He is supposed to hold them
in the mind as axioms, and to apply them in all his expositions with
uniform consistency.1
The importance of establishing sound and trustworthy principles
of biblical exposition is universally conceded. For it
. . , . Importance of
is evident that a false principle m his method will nec- sound princi-
essarily vitiate the entire exegetical process of an inter- ples*
preter. When we find that in the explanation of certain parts of
the Scriptures no two interpreters out of a whole class agree, we
have great reason to presume at once that some fatal error lurks in
their principles of interpretation. We cannot believe that the
sacred writers desired to be misunderstood. They did not write
with a purpose to confuse and mislead their readers. Nor is it
reasonable to suppose that the Scripture, given by divine inspira¬
tion, is of the nature of a puzzle designed to exercise the ingenuity
of critics. It was given to make men wise unto salvation, and in
great part it is so direct and simple in its teachings that a little
child can understand its meaning. But the Bible contains some
riddles and dark sayings, and many revelations in the form of types,
symbols, parables, allegories, visions, and dreams, and the interpre-
1 “ The perfect understanding of a discourse,” says Schleiermacher, “ is a work of
art, and involves the need of an art-doctrine, which we designate by the term Her¬
meneutics. Such an art-doctrine has existence only in so far as the precepts admitted
form a system resting upon principles which are immediately evident from the nature
of thought and language.” — Outline of the Study of Theology,” p. 142. Edinb., 1850.
11
162
PRINCIPLES OF
tation of these has exercised the most gifted minds. Many differ¬
ent and often contradictory methods of exposition have been
adopted, and some enthusiasts have gone to the extreme of affirm¬
ing that there are manifold meanings and “ mountains of sense” in
every line of Scripture. Under the spell of some such fascination
many have been strangely misled, and have set forth as expositions
of the Scriptures their own futile fancies.1
Sound hermeneutical principles are, therefore, elements of safety
True method and satisfaction in the study of God’s written word,
of determining p>ut how are gucj1 principles to be ascertained and es-
pies. tablished? How may we determine what is true and
what is false in the various methods of exposition? We must go
to the Scriptures themselves, and search them in all their parts and
forms. We must seek to ascertain the principles which the sacred
writers followed. Naked propositions, or formulated rules of in¬
terpretation, will be of little or no worth unless supported and
illustrated by self -verifying examples. It is worthy of note that
the Scriptures furnish repeated examples of the formal interpre-
tation of dreams, visions, types, symbols, and parables. In such
examples we are especially to seek our fundamental and controlling
laws of exposition. Unless we find clear warrant for it in the word
itself, we should never allow that any one passage or sentiment of
divine revelation has more than one true import. The Holy Scrip¬
ture is no Delphic oracle to bewilder and mislead the human heart
by utterances of double meaning. God’s written word, taken as a
whole, and allowed to speak for itself, will be found to be its own
best interpreter.
The process of observing the laws of thought and language, as
Ennobling ten- exhibited in the Holy Scriptures, is an ennobling study.
meneuUcTi ^ affords an edifying intercourse with eminent and
study. choice spirits of the past, and compels us for the time
to lose sight of temporary interests, and to become absorbed with
the thoughts and feelings of other ages. He who forms the habit
of studying not only the divine thoughts of revelation, but also
the principles and methods according to which those thoughts have
been expressed, will acquire a moral and intellectual culture worthy
of the noblest ambition.
1 Lange suggestively remarks : “ As the sun in the earthly heavens has to break
through many cloudy media, so also does the divine word of Holy Scripture through
the confusion of every kind which arises from the soil of earthly intuition and repre¬
sentation.” Gmndriss der biblischen Hermeneutik, p. 77.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
168
4 CHAPTER H.
DIFFERENT METHODS OP INTERPRETATION.
In preceding to ascertain the principles of a valid and self-consis¬
tent Scripture exegesis, we do well to know beforehand something
of the diverse methods and systems of interpretation which have
been followed by others. A brief survey of these will be a help
both in avoiding false principles and in apprehending the true.
The allegorical method of interpretation obtained an early prom¬
inence among the Jews of Alexandria. Its origin is Allegorical in-
usually attributed to the mingling of Greek philosophy terpretation.
and the biblical conceptions of God. Many of the theophanies and
anthropomorphisms of the Old Testament were repugnant to the
philosophic mind, and hence the effort to discover behind the outer
form an inner substance of truth. The biblical narratives were
often treated like the Greek myths, and explained as either a his¬
torical or an enigmatical embodiment of moral and religious les¬
sons. The most distinguished representative of Jewish allegorical
interpretation was Philo of Alexandria, and an example of his alle¬
gorizing many be seen in the following remarks on the rivers of
Eden (Gen. ii, 10-14):
In these words Moses intends to sketch out the particular virtues.
And they, also, are four in number, prudence, temperance, courage, and
justice. Now the greatest river, from which the four branches flow off, is
generic virtue, which we have already called goodness; and the four
branches are the same number of virtues. Generic virtue, therefore, de¬
rives its beginning from Eden, which is the wisdom of God ; whicli re¬
joices, and exults, and triumphs, being delighted at and honoured on
account of nothing else, except its Father, God. And the four particular
virtues are branches from the generic virtue, which, like a river, waters all
the good actions of each with an abundant stream of benefits.1
Similar allegorizing abounds in the early Christian fathers. Thus,
Clement of Alexandria, commenting on the Mosaic prohibition of
eating the swine, the hawk, the eagle, and the raven, observes:
“ The sow is the emblem of voluptuous and unclean lust of food.
. . . The eagle indicates robbery, the hawk injustice, and the raven
greed.” On Exod. xv, 1, “ Jehovah has triumphed gloriously; the
horse and his rider has he thrown into the sea,” Clement remarks:
1 The Allegories of the Sacred Laws, book i, 1 9 (Bohn’s edition).
164
PRINCIPLES OF
The many-limbed and brutal affection, lust, with the rider mounted, who
gives the reins to pleasures, he casts into the sea — throwing them away
into the disorders of the world. Thus, also, Plato, in his book on the soul
[Timseus], says that the charioteer and the horse that ran off — (the irra¬
tional part, which is divided into two, into anger and concupiscence) — fall'
down; and so the myth intimates that it was through the licentiousness of
the steeds that Phaethon was thrown out.1
The allegorical method of interpretation is based upon a pro¬
found reverence for the Scriptures, and a desire to exhibit their
manifold depths of wisdom. But it will be noticed at once that
its habit is to disregard the common signification of words, and
give wing to all manner of fanciful speculation. It does not draw
out the legitimate meaning of an author’s language, but foists into
it whatever the whim or fancy of an interpreter may desire. As
a system, therefore, it puts itself beyond all well-defined principles
and laws.
Closely allied to the allegorical interpretation is the Mystical,1
Mystical inter- according to which manifold depths and shades of mean-
pretation. ing are sought in every word of Scripture. The alle¬
gorical interpreters have, accordingly, very naturally run into much
that is to be classed with mystical theorizing. Clement of Alex¬
andria maintained that the laws of Moses contain a fourfold signif¬
icance, the natural, the mystical, the moral, and the prophetical.
Origen held that, as man’s nature consists of body, soul, and spirit,
so the Scriptures have a corresponding threefold sense, the bodily
(oufiariKog), or literal, the psychical or moral, and the
spiritual (nvevfjariKog), which latter he further distinguishes as alle¬
gorical, tropological, and anagogical. In the early part of the
ninth century the learned Rhabanus Maurus recommended four
methods of exposition, the historical, the allegorical, the anagogical,
and the tropological. He observes :
By these the mother Wisdom feeds the sons of her adoption. Upon
youth and those of tender age she bestows drink, in the milk of history;
.on such as have made proficiency in faith, food, in the bread of allegory;
to the good, such as strenuously labour in good works, she gives a satisfy¬
ing portion in the savoury nourishment of tropology. To those, in fine,
who have raised themselves above the common level of humanity by a con¬
tempt of earthly things, and have advanced to the highest by heavenly
desires, she gives the sober intoxication of theoretic contemplation in the
wine of anagogy. . . . History, which narrates examples of perfect men,
1 Miscellanies, book v, chap. viii.
According to Ernesti, the mystical interpretation differs from the allegorical, as
among the Greeks deupia differs from aklriyopia. Institutes, chap. ix, 3.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
165
excites the reader to imitate their sanctity: allegory excites him to know
the truth in the revelation of faith ; tropology encourages him to the love
of virtue by improving the morals; and anagogy promotes the longing after
eternal happiness by revealing everlasting joys. . . . Since then, it appears
that these four modes of understanding the Holy Scriptures unveil all the
secret tilings in them, we should consider when they are to be understood
according to one of them only, when according to two, when according to
three, and when according to all the four together.1
Among the mystical interpreters we may also place the cele¬
brated Emanuel Swedenborg, who maintains a three- swedenborgian
fold sense of Scripture, according to what he calls “ the interpretation.
Science of Correspondencies.” As there are three heavens, a low¬
est, a middle, and a highest, so there are three senses of the Word,
the natural or literal, the spiritual, and the celestial. He says :
The Word in the letter is like a casket, where lie in order precious stones,
pearls, and diadems; and when a man esteems the Word holy, and reads
it for the sake of the uses of life, the thoughts of his mind are, compara¬
tively, like one who holds such a cabinet in his hand, and sends it heaven¬
ward ; and it is opened in its ascent, and the precious things therein come
to the angels, who arc deeply delighted with seeing and examining them.
This delight of the angels is communicated to the man, and makes conso¬
ciation, and also a communication of perceptions.3
He explains the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” (Exod.
xx, 13), first, in its natural sense, as forbidding murder and also
the cherishing of hatred and revenge; secondly, in the spiritual
sense, as forbidding “to act the devil and destroy a man’s soul;”
and thirdly, in the celestial or heavenly sense, the angels understand
killing to signify hating the Lord and the Word.
Somewhat allied to the mystical is that Pietistic mode of exposi¬
tion, according to which the interpreter claims to be Tietistic inter-
guided by an “inward light,” received as “an unction pretation.
from the Holy One” (1 John ii, 20). The rules of grammar and
the common meaning and usage of words are discarded,, and the
internal Light of the Spirit is held to be the abiding and infallible
Revealer. Some of the later Pietists of Germany, and the Quakers
of England and America have been especially given to this mode
of handling the Scriptures.’ It is certainly to be supposed that
1 From Maurus. Allegorize in Universam Sacram Seripturam, as given in Davidson,
Hermeneutics, pp. 165, 166.
2 The True Christian Religion, chap, iv, 6.
3 From pietistic extravagance we of course except such men as Spener and A. H.
Francke, the great leaders of what is known as Pietism in Germany. The noble prac-
tical character of their work and teaching saved them from the excesses into which
most of those run who are commonly called Pietists. “The principal efforts of the
166
PRINCIPLES OF
this holy inward light would never contradict itself, or guide its
followers into different expositions of the same scripture. But the
divergent and irreconcilable interpretations prevalent among the
adherents of this system show that the “inward light” is untrust¬
worthy. Like the allegorical and mystical systems of interpreta¬
tion, Pietism concedes the sanctity of the Scriptures^ and seeks in
them the lessons of eternal life; but as to principles and rules of
exegesis it is more lawless and irrational. The Allegorist pro¬
fesses to follow certain analogies and correspondencies, but the
Quaker-Pietist is a law unto himself, and his own subjective feel¬
ing or fancy is the end of controversy. He sets himself up as a
new oracle, and while assuming to follow the written word of God,
puts forth his own dictum as a further revelation. Such a pro¬
cedure, of course, can never commend itself to the common sense
and the rational judgment.
A method of exposition, which owes its distinction to the cele¬
brated J. S. Sender, the father of the destructive school of German
Aceommoda- Rationalism, is known as the Accommodation Theory,
tion Theory. According to this theory the Scripture teachings respect¬
ing miracles, vicarious and expiatory sacrifice, the resurrection,
eternal judgment, and the existence of angels and demons, are to
be regarded as an accommodation to the superstitious notions,
prejudices, and ignorance of the times. The supernatural was
thus set aside. Sender became possessed with the idea that we
must distinguish between religion and theology, and between
personal piety and the public teaching of the Church. He re¬
jected the doctrine of the Divine inspiration of the Scriptures,
and argued that, as the Old Testament was written for the Jews,
whose religious notions were narrow and faulty, we cannot accept
its teachings as a general rule of faith. Matthew’s Gospel, he held,
was intended for Jews outside of Palestine, and John’s Gospel for
Christians who had more or less of Grecian culture. Paul at first
adapted himself to Jewish modes of thought with the hope of win¬
ning over many of his countrymen to Christianity, but failing in
this, he turned to the Gentiles, and became pre-eminent in holding
up Christianity as the religion for all men. The different books of
Scripture were, accordingly, designed to serve only a temporary
Pietists,” says Imraer, “ were directed toward the edificatory application of Scripture,
as may be seen from Francke’s Manuductio ad Lectionem Scripturae Sacrae. This
predominance of effort at edification soon degenerated into indifference to science, and
at last into proud contempt of it. Mystical and typological trifling arose ; chiliastic
phantasies found great acceptance; the Scriptures were not so much explained as
overwhelmed with pious reflections.” Hermeneutics, p. 46.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS. 167
purpose, and many of their statements may be summarily set aside
as untrue.
The fatal objection to this method of interpretation is that it
necessarily impugns the veracity and honour of the sacred writers,
and of the Son of God himself. It represents them as conniving at
the errors and ignorance of men, and confirming them and the
readers of the Scriptures in such ignorance and error. If such a
principle be admitted into our expositions of the Bible, we at once
lose our moorings, and drift out upon an open sea of conjecture
and uncertainty.
A passing notice should also be taken of what is commonly called
the Moral Interpretation, and which owes its origin to Moral interpre-
the celebrated philosopher of Konigsberg, Immanuel tatioa of Kaut-
Kant. The prominence given to the pure reason, and the idealism
maintained in his metaphysical system, naturally led to the practice
of making the Scriptures bend to the preconceived demands of
reason. For, although the whole Scripture be given by inspiration
of God, it has for its practical value and purpose the moral improve¬
ment of man. Hence, if the literal and historical sense of a given
passage yield no profitable moral lesson, such as commends itself to
the practical reason, we are at liberty to set it aside, and attach to
the words such a meaning as is compatible with the religion of
reason. It is maintained that such expositions are not to be charged
with insincerity, inasmuch as they are not to be set forth as the
meaning strictly intended by the sacred writers, but only as a
meaning which the writers may possibly have intended.1 The only
real value of the Scriptures is to illustrate and confirm the religion
of reason.
It is easy to see that such a system of interpretation, which pro¬
fessedly ignores the grammatical and historical sense of the Bible,
can have no reliable or self-consistent rules. Like the mystical and
allegorical methods, it leaves every thing subject to the peculiar
faith or fancy of the interpreter.
So open to criticism and objection are all the above-mentioned
methods of interpretation, that we need not be surprised to find
them offset by other extremes. Of all rationalistic theories the
1 See Kant, Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen Vernunft, p. 1-61. This
“ was the work of his old age, and at all periods of his life he seems to have been at
least as deficient in religious sentiment as in emotional imagination, which is allied to
it. ... It treats the revelations of Scripture in regard to the fall of man, to his re¬
demption, and to his restoration, as a moral allegory, the data of which are supplied
by the consciousness of depravity, and of dereliction from the strict principles of duty.
It is Strauss in the germ.” M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopaedia, article Kant.
168
PRINCIPLES OF
Naturalistic is the most violent and radical. A rigid application
Naturalistic m- this theory is exhibited in Paulus’ Commentary on
terpretation. the New Testament,1 in which it is maintained that the
biblical critic should always distinguish between what is fact and
what is mere opinion. He accepts the historical truth of the Gospel
narratives, but holds that the mode of accounting for them is a mat¬
ter of opinion. He rejects all supernatural agency in human affairs,
and explains the miracles of Jesus either as acts of kindness, or ex¬
hibitions of medical skill, or illustrations of personal sagacity and
tact, recorded in a manner peculiar to the age and opinions of the
different writers. Jesus’ walking on the sea was really a walking on
the shore ; but the boat was all the time so near the shore, that when
Peter jumped into the sea Jesus could reach and rescue him from the
shore. The excitement was so great, and the impression on the dis¬
ciples so deep, that it seemed to them as if Jesus had miraculously
walked on the sea, and come to their help. The apparent miracle of
making five loaves feed five thousand people was done simply by the
example, which Jesus bade his disciples set, of distributing of their
own little store to those immediately about them. This example was
promptly followed by other companies, and it was found that there
was more than sufficient food for all. Lazarus did not really die, but
fell into a swoon, and was supposed to be dead. But Jesus suspected
the real state of the case, and coming to the tomb at the opportune
moment, happily found that his suspicions were correct; and his wis¬
dom and power in the case made a profound and lasting impression.
This style of exposition, however, was soon seen to set at naught
the rational laws of human speech, and to undermine the credibility
of all ancient history. It exposed the sacred books to all manner
of ridicule and satire, and only for a little time awakened any con¬
siderable interest.
The Naturalistic method of interpretation was followed by the
The Mythical Mythical. Its most distinguished representative was
, The°ry' Davjd Friedrich Strauss, whose Life of Jesus (Das Leben
Jesu), first published in 1835, created a profound sensation in the
Christian world. The Mythical theory, as developed and rigidly
carried out by Strauss, was a logical and self-consistent application
to biblical exposition of the Hegelian (pantheistic) doctrine that the
idea of God and of the absolute is neither shot forth miraculously,
nor levealed in the individual, but developed in the consciousness
of humanity. According to Strauss, the Messianic idea was gradu¬
ally developed in the expectations and yearnings of the Jewish
Philologisch-kritischer und historischer Commentar liber das neue Testament.
4 vols. 1800-1804.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
169
nation, and at the time Jesus appeared it was ripening into full
maturity. The Christ was to spring from the line of David, he
born at Bethlehem, be a prophet like Moses, and speak words of
infallible wisdom. His age should be full of signs and wonders.
The eyes of the blind should be opened, the ears of the deaf should
be unstopped, and the tongue of the dumb should sing. Amid
these hopes and expectations J esus arose, an Israelite of remarkable
beauty and force of character, who, by his personal excellence and
wise discourse, made an overwhelming impression upon his imme¬
diate friends and followers. After his decease, his disciples not
only yielded to the conviction that he must have risen from the
dead, but began at once to associate with him all their Messianic
ideals. Their argument was: “ Such and such things must have
pertained to the Christ; Jesus was the Christ; therefore such and
such things happened to him.” 1 The visit of the wise men from
the East was suggested by Balaam’s prophecy of the “ star out of
Jacob” (Num. xxiv, 17). The flight of the holy family into Egypt
was worked up out of Moses’ flight into Midian; and the slaughter
of the infants of Bethlehem out of Pharaoh’s order to destroy
every male among the infant Israelites of Egypt. The miraculous
feeding of the five thousand with a few loaves of bread was appro¬
priated from the Old Testament story of the manna. The trans¬
figuration in the high mountain apart was drawn from the accounts
of Moses and Elijah in the mount of God. In short, Christ did not
institute the Christian Church, and send forth his gospel, as nar¬
rated in the New Testament; rather, the Christ of the Gospels was
the mythical creation of the early Church. Adoring enthusiasts
clothed the memory of the man Jesus with all that could enhance
his name and character as the Messiah of the world. But what is
fact and what is fiction must be determined by critical analysis.
Sometimes it may be impossible to draw the dividing line.
Among the criteria by which we are to distinguish the mythical,
Strauss instances the following: A narrative is not his- strauss* crite-
torical (I) when its statements are irreconcilable with na of myths,
the known and universal laws which govern the course of events;
(2) when it is inconsistent with itself or with other accounts of the
same thing; (3) when the actors converse in poetry or elevated dis¬
course unsuitable to their training and situation; (4) when the es¬
sential substance and groundwork of a reported occurrence is either
inconceivable in itself, or is in striking harmony with some Messi¬
anic idea of the Jews of that age.2
1 See Life of Jesus, Introduction, § 14.
2 Ibid., Introduction, § 16.
170
PRINCIPLES OF
We need not here enter upon a detailed exposure of the fallacies
of this mythical theory. It is sufficient to observe, on the four
critical rules enumerated above, that the first dogmatically denies
the possibility of miracles; the second (especially as used by
Strauss) virtually assumes, that when two accounts disagree, both
must be false! the third is worthless until it is clearly shown
what is suitable or unsuitable in each given case; and the fourth,
when reduced to the last analysis, will be found to be simply an
appeal to one’s subjective notions. To these considerations we add
that the Gospel portraiture of Jesus is notably unlike the prevalent
Jewish conception of the Messiah at that time. It is too perfect
and marvellous to have been the product of any human fancy.
Myths arise only in unhistoric ages, and a long time after the per¬
sons or events they represent, whereas Jesus lived and wrought his
wonderful works in a most critical period of Greek and Roman
civilization. Furthermore, the New Testament writings were pub¬
lished too soon after the actual appearance of Jesus to embody
such a mythical development as Strauss assumes. While attempt¬
ing to show how the Church spontaneously originated the Christ of
the gospels, this whole theory fails to show any sufficient cause or
explanation of the origin of the Church and of Christianity itself.
The mythical interpretation, after half a century of learned labours,
has notably failed to commend itself to the judgment of Christian
scholars, and has few advocates at the present time.
The four last-named methods of interpretation may all be desig-
other rational- nated as Rationalistic; but under this name we may
istic methods. aiso p]ace some other methods which agree with the
naturalistic, the mythical, the moral, and the accommodation the¬
ories, in denying the supernatural element in the Bible. The
peculiar methods by which F. C. Baur, Renan, Schenkel, and other
rationalistic critics have attempted to portray the life of Jesus,
and to account for the origin of the Gospels, the Acts, and the
Epistles, often involve correspondingly peculiar principles of inter¬
pretation. All these writers, however, proceed with assumptions
which virtually beg the questions at issue between the naturalist
and the supernaturalist. But they all conspicuously differ among
themselves. Baur rejects the mythical theory of Strauss, and finds
the origin of many of the New Testament writings in the Petrine
and Pauline factions of the early Church. These factions arose over
the question of abolishing the Old Testament ceremonial and the
rite of circumcision. The Acts of the Apostles is regarde d as the
monument of a pacification between these rival parties, effected in
the early part of the second century. The book is treated as large-
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
171
ly a fiction, in which the author, a disciple of Paul, represents
Peter as the first to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles, and exhibits
Paul as conforming to divers Jewish customs, thus securing a rec¬
onciliation between the Pauline and Petrine Christians.1 Renan,
on the other hand, maintains a legendary theory of the origin of
the gospels, and attributes the miracles of Jesus, like the marvels
of mediaeval saints, partly to the blind adoration and enthusiasm of
his followers, and partly to pious fraud. Schenkel essays to make
the life and character of Christ intelligible by stripping it of the
divine and the miraculous, and presenting him as a mere mail.
Against all these rationalistic theories it is obvious to remark that
they exclude and destroy each other. Strauss exploded the natur¬
alistic method of Paulus, and Baur shows that the mythical theory
of Strauss is untenable. Renan pronounces against the theories of
Baur, and exposes the glaring fallacy of making the Petrine and
Pauline factions account for the origin of the New Testament
books, and the books account for the factions. Renan’s own meth¬
ods of criticism appear to be utterly lawless, and his light and cap¬
tious remarks have led many of his readers to feel that he is desti¬
tute of any serious or sacred convictions, and that he would readily
make use of furtive means to gain his end. He is continually
foisting into the Scriptures meanings of his own, and making the
writers say what was probably never in their thoughts. lie as¬
sumes, for instance, as a teaching of Jesus, that the rich man was
sent to Hades because he was rich, and Lazarus was glorified be¬
cause he was a pauper. Many of his interpretations are based upon
the most unwarrantable assumptions, and are unworthy of any seri¬
ous attempt at refutation. The logical issue lies far back of his
exegesis, in the fundamental questions of a personal God and an
overruling providence.
Sceptical and rationalistic assaults upon the Scriptures have called
out a method of interpretation which may be called Apologetlc an„
Apologetic. It assumes to defend at all hazards the au- Dogmatic meth-
x o . . . /» -• ods.
thenticity, genuineness, and credibility of every docu¬
ment incorporated in the sacred canon, and its standpoint and
methods are so akin to that of the Dogmatic exposition of the Bi¬
ble, that we present the two together. The objectionable feature
of these methods is that they virtually set out with the ostensible
purpose of maintaining a preconceived hypothesis. The hypothesis
may be right, but the procedure is always liable to mislead. It
1 Several notions of the Tubingen critical school, represented by Baur, may be found
in substance among the teachings of Sender, the author of this destructive species of
criticism.
172
PRINCIPLES OF
presents the constant temptation to find desired meanings in words,
and ignore the scope and general purpose of the writer. There are
cases where it is well to assume a hypothesis, and use it as a means
of investigation; but in all such cases the hypothesis is only as¬
sumed tentatively, not affirmed dogmatically. In the exposition of
the Bible, apology and dogma have a legitimate place. The true
apology defends the sacred books against an unreasonable and cap¬
tious criticism, and presents their claims to be regarded as the reve¬
lation of God. But this can be done only by pursuing rational
methods, and by the use of a convincing logic. So also the Scrip¬
tures are profitable for dogma, but the dogma must be shown to be
a legitimate teaching of the Scripture, not a traditional idea at¬
tached to the Scripture. The extermination of the Canaanites, the
immolation of Jephthah’s daughter, the polygamy of the Old Test¬
ament saints, and their complicity with slavery, are capable of
rational explanation, and, in that sense, of a valid apology. The
true apologist will not attempt to justify the cruelties of the an¬
cient wars, or hold that Israel had a legal right to Canaan; he will
not seek to evade the obvious import of language, and maintain
that Jephthah’s daughter was not offered at all, but became a Jew¬
ish nun; nor will he find it necessary to defend the Old Testament
practice of polygamy, or of slavery. He will let facts and state¬
ments stand in their own light, but guard against false inferences
and rash conclusions. So also the doctrines of the Trinity, the
divinity of Christ, the personality of the Holy Spirit, the vicarious
atonement, justification, regeneration, sanctification, and the resur¬
rection, have a firm foundation in the Scriptures ; but how unscien¬
tific and objectionable many of the methods by which these and
other doctrines have been maintained! When a theologian assumes
the standpoint of an ecclesiastical creed, and thence proceeds, with
a polemic air, to search for single texts of Scripture favourable to
himself or unfavourable to his opponent, he is more than likely to
overdo the matter. His creed may be as true as the Bible itself;
but his method is reprehensible. Witness the disputes of Luther
and Zwingle over the matter of consubstantiation. Read the
polemic literature of the Antinomian, the Calvinistic, and the Sacra-
mentarian controversies. The whole Bible is ransacked and treated
as if it were an atomical collection of dogmatic proof -texts. How
hard is it, even at this day, for the polemic divine to concede the
spuriousness of 1 John v, 7. It should be remembered that no
apology is sound, and no doctrine sure, which rests upon uncritical
methods, or proceeds upon dogmatical assumptions. Such proce¬
dures are not exposition, but imposition.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
173
In distinction from all the above-mentioned methods of interpre¬
tation, we may name the Grammatico-Historical as the „
metliod which most fully commends itself to the judg- Historical in-
ment and conscience of Christian scholars. Its funda- terPretatl0n-
mental principle is to gather from the Scriptures themselves the
precise meaning which the writers intended to convey. It applies
to the sacred books the same principles, the same grammatical proc¬
ess and exercise of common sense and reason, which we apply to
other books. The grammatico-historical exegete, furnished with
suitable qualifications, intellectual, educational, and moral,1 will ac¬
cept the claims of the Bible without prejudice or adverse prepos¬
session, and, with no ambition to prove them true or false, will
investigate the language and import of each book with fearless in¬
dependence. He will master the language of the writer, the par¬
ticular dialect which he used, and his peculiar style and manner of
expression. He will inquire into the circumstances under which he
wrote, the manners and customs of his age, and the purpose or ob¬
ject which he had in view. He has a right to assume that no sensi¬
ble author will be knowingly inconsistent with himself, or seek to
bewilder and mislead his readers.
“ Nearly all the treatises on hermeneutics,” says Moses Stuart,
“ since the days of Ernesti, have laid it down as a max- ^ Bible tobe
im which cannot be controverted, that the Bible is to interpreted like
be interpreted in the same manner, that is, by the same other b00ks*
principles, as all other books. Writers are' not wanting, previously
to the period in which Ernesti lived, who have maintained the same
thing; but we may also find some who have assailed the position be¬
fore us, and laboured to show that it is nothing less than a species
of profaneness to treat the sacred books as we do the classic au¬
thors with respect to their interpretation. Is this allegation well
grounded? Is there any good reason to object to the principle of
interpretation now in question? In order to answer,. let us direct
our attention to the nature and source of what are now called prin¬
ciples or laws of interpretation : Whence did they originate ? Are
they the artificial production of high-wrought skill, of laboured re¬
search, of profound and extensive learning? Hid they spring from
the subtleties of nice distinctions, from the philosophical and meta¬
physical efforts of the schools ? Are they the product of exalted
and dazzling genius, sparks of celestial fire, which none but a
favoured few can emit? Ho; nothing of all this. The principles
of interpretation, as to their substantial and essential elements, are
no invention of man, no product of his effort and learned skill;
1 Compare pp. 151-158 on the Qualifications of an Interpreter.
174
PRINCIPLES OF
nay, tliey can scarcely be said with truth to have been discovered
by him. They are coeval with our nature. Ever since man was
created and endowed with the powers of speech, and made a com-
municative , social being, he has had occasion to practice upon the
principles of interpretation, and has actually done so. From the
first moment that one human being addressed another by the use
of language down to the present hour, the essential laws of inter¬
pretation became, and have continued to be, a practical matter.
The person addressed has always been an interpreter in every in¬
stance where he has heard and understood what was addressed to
him. All the human race, therefore, are, and ever have been, in¬
terpreters. It is a law of their rational, intelligent, communicative
nature. Just as truly as one human being was formed so as to ad¬
dress another in language, just so truly that other was formed to
interpret and understand what is said.
“I venture to advance a step farther and to aver that all men
are, and ever have been, in reality, good and true interpreters of
each other’s language. Lias any part of our race, in full possession
of the human faculties, ever failed to understand what others said
to them, and to understand it truly? or to make themselves under¬
stood by others, when they have in their communications kept
within the circle of their own knowledge? Surely none. Inter¬
pretation, then, in its basis or fundamental principles, is a native
art, if I may so speak. It is coeval with the power of uttering
words. It is, of course, a universal art ; it is common to all nations,
barbarous as well as civilized. One cannot commit a more palpable
error in relation to this subject than to suppose that the art of in¬
terpretation is ... in itself wholly dependent on acquired skill for
the discovery and development of its principles. Acquired skill has
indeed helped to an orderly exhibition and arrangement of its prin¬
ciples; but this is all. Jhe materials were all in existence before
skill attempted to develop them. . . . An interpreter, well skilled
in his art, will glory in it, that it is an art which has its foundation
in the laws of our intellectual and rational nature, and is coeval and
connate with this nature.” 1
So far, indeed, as the Bible may differ from other books in its su¬
pernatural revelations, its symbols and peculiar claims, it may require
some corresponding principles of exposition; but none, we believe,
which require us to turn aside from the propositions here affirmed.
Are the same principles of interpretation to be applied to the Scriptures as to
other books? ” Article by Prof. M. Stuart in the American Biblical Repository for
Jan., 1832, pp. 124-126. See also Hahn, On the Grammatico-Historical Interpretation
of the Scriptures, in the same Repository for Jan., 1831.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
175
CHAPTER III.
THE PRIMARY MEANING OF WORDS.
In a previous chapter of this work1 we showed how new languages
originate ; how they become modified and changed ; how new dia¬
lects arise, and how, at length, a national form of speech may go
out of use and become known as a dead language. Attention to
these facts makes it apparent that any given language Wordapractical.
is an accumulation and aggregate of words which a ly the elements
nation or community of people use for the interchange of language-
and expression of their thoughts. “Language,” says Whitney,
“has, in fact, no existence save in the minds and mouths of those
who use it ; it is made up of separate articulated signs of thought,
each of which is attached by a mental association to the idea it
represents, is uttered by voluntary effort, and has its value and
currency only by the agreement of speakers and hearers.”2
To understand, therefore, the language of a speaker or writer, it
is necessary, first of all, to know the meaning of his words. The
interpreter, especially, needs to keep in mind the difference, so fre¬
quently apparent, between the primitive signification of a word
and that which it subsequently obtains. We first naturally inquire
after the original meaning of a word, or what is com- Etymolof?y fUSUS
monly called its etymology. Next we examine the loquendi , and
J J i • synonymes.
usus loquendi , or actual meaning which it bears in com¬
mon usage ; and then we are prepared to understand the occasion
and import of synonymes, and how a language becomes enriched
by them.
Whatever may be the common meaning of a word, as used by a
particular people or age, it often represents a history. Manifold value
Language has been significantly characterized as fossil of etymology,
poetry, fossil history, fossil ethics, fossil philosophy. “This means,”
says Trench, “that just as in some fossil, curious and beautiful
shapes of vegetable or animal life, the graceful fern, or the finely
vertebrated lizard, extinct, it may be, for thousands of years, are
permanently bound up with the stone, and rescued from that pei-
ishing which would have otherwise been theirs, so in words are
1 Part I, chap, iii, pp. 72, 73.
2 Language and the Study of Language, p. 35.
176
PRINCIPLES OF
beautiful thoughts and images, the imagination and feeling of past
ages, of men whose very names have perished, preserved and made
safe forever.”1 Benjamin W. Dwight declares etymology to be
“ fossil poetry, philosophy, and history combined. In the treasured
words of the past, the very spirits of elder days look out upon us,
as from so many crystalline spheres, with friendly recognition. We
see in them the light of their eyes; we feel in them the warmth of
their hearts. They are relics, they are tokens, and almost break
into life again at our touch. The etymologist unites in himself the
characteristics of the traveller, roaming through strange and far-
off climes; the philosopher, prying into the causes and sequences
of things ; the antiquary, filling his cabinet with ancient curiosities
and wonders ; the historiographer, gathering up the records of by¬
gone men and ages ; and the artist, studying the beautiful designs
in word architecture furnished him by various nations.”
Take, for example, that frequently occurring New Testament
word eKK^rjcia, commonly rendered church. Compounded
kk. r}cia. ^ ^ ar^ KaXeTv9 to calif or summon , it was first
used of an assembly of the citizens of a Greek community, sum¬
moned together by a crier, for the transaction of business pertain¬
ing to the public welfare. The preposition ek indicates that it was
no motley crowd,3 no mass-meeting of nondescripts, but a select
company gathered out from the common mass ; it was an assembly
of free citizens, possessed of well-understood legal rights and
powers. The verb ttaXelv denotes that the assembly was legally
called (compare the ev evvofiu eiacXrjcria of Acts xix, 39), sum¬
moned for the purpose of deliberating in lawful conclave. Whether
the etymological connexion between the Hebrew and the Greek
KaXelv be vital or merely accidental, the Septuagint translators gen¬
erally render by EiiKXrjoia, and thus by an obvious process, ek-
KXrjoia came to represent among the Hellenists the Old Testament
conception of “ the congregation of the people of Israel,” as usually
denoted by the Hebrew word Hence it was natural for Ste¬
phen to speak of the congregation of Israel, which Moses led out of
Egypt, as “the enfcXrjoia in the wilderness” (Acts vii, 38), and equal¬
ly natural for the word to become the common designation of the
Christian community of converts from Judaism and the world.
Into this New Testament sense of the word, it was also important
that the full force of ek and KaXelv (KXijoig, KXrjrog) should continue.
‘The Study of Words. Introductory Lecture, p. 12. New York, 1861.
9 Article on The Science of Etymology, in Bibliotheca Sacra, April, 1868, p. 438.
9 Compare the confused assembly, rj eKKXrjoia avvKexvytvrj, composed of the multitude ,
& o^Aof, in Acts xix, 32, 33, 40.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
177
As the old Greek assembly was called by a public herald (nr/pvt;), so
“the Church of God (or of the Lord), which he purchased with his
own blood” (Acts xx, 28), is the congregation of those who are
“called to be saints” (kAt/toZ ayioi, Rom. i, 7), “called out of dark¬
ness into his marvellous light ” (1 Pet. ii, 9), called “ unto his king¬
dom and glory” (1 Thess. ii, 12), and called by the voice of an au¬
thorized herald or preacher (Rom. x, 14, 15 ; 1 Tim. ii, 7).1 With
this fundamental idea the church may denote either the small as¬
sembly in a private house (Rom. xvi, 5 ; Philemon 2), the Christian
congregations of particular towns and cities (1 Cor. i, 2; 1 Thess.
i, 1), or the Church universal (Eph. i, 22; iii, 21). But a new idea is
added when our Lord says, “ I will build my Church ” (Matt, xvi, 18).
Here the company of the saints aytoi) is conceived of as a
house, a stately edifice ; and it was peculiarly fitting that Peter, the
disciple to whom these 'words were addressed, should afterward
write to the general Church, and designate it not only as “ a chosen
generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation,” but also as “a spir¬
itual house,” builded of living stones (1 Pet. ii, 5, 9). Paul also
uses the same grand image, and speaks of the household of God as
“ having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets,
Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone, in whom all the
building, fitly framed together, grows unto a living temple in the
Lord” (Eph. ii, 20, 21). And then again, to this image of a build¬
ing (comp. 1 Cor. iii, 9) he also adds that of a living human body
of which Christ is the head, defining the whole as “his body, the
fulness (7rA?7(}Wjua) of him who fills all things in all” (Eph. i, 23).
Comp, also Rom. xii, 5; 1 Cor. xii, 12-28; and Col. i, 18.
Observe also the forms and derivatives of the Hebrew to
cover. The primary meaning is to cover over , so as to -^3, the cow¬
hide from view. The ark was thus covered or over- cring of atone-
laid with a covering of some material like pitch (Gen. ment-
vi, 14). Then it came to be used of a flower or shrub, with the
resin or powder of which oriental females are said to have covered
and stained their finger nails (Cant, i, 14). Again we find it ap¬
plied to villages or hamlets (1 Sam. vi, 18; 1 Chron. xxvii, 25), ap¬
parently, as Gesenius suggests, because such places were regarded
as a covering or shelter to the inhabitants. The verb is also used
of the abolishing or setting aside Of a covenant (Isa. xxviii, 18).
But the deeper meaning of the word is that of covering, oi hiding
sin, and thus making an atonement. Thus Jacob thought to cover
his brother Esau with a present (Gen. xxxii, 20). His words are,
literally, “I will cover his face with the present which goes before
1 A similar interesting history attaches to the words Kr,pv £ and KT/pvaco).
12
178
PRINCIPLES OP
me, and afterward I will see his face; perhaps he will lift up my
face.” Feeling that he had sorely wronged his brother, he would
now fain cover his face with such a princely gift that Esau would
no more behold those wrongs of the past. His old offences being
thus hidden, he hopes to be permitted to see his brother’s face in
peace ; and perhaps even Esau will condescend to lift up his face —
raise from the dust the face of the prostrate and penitent Jacob.
The transition was easy from this use of the verb to that of making
an atonement , a meaning which it constantly conveys in the books
of the law (Lev. xvii, 11). And hence the use of the noun 133 in
the sense of ransom, satisfaction (Exod. xxx, 12), and the plural
DnS3, atonements (Exod. xxx, 10; Lev. xxiii, 27, 28). Hence,
also, that word of profound significance, capporeth, the
mercy-seat, the lid or cover of the ark which contained the tables
of the law (Exod. xxv, 17-22) — the symbol of mercy covering
wrath.
Additional interest is given to the study of words by the science
ueip of com_ of comparative philology. In tracing a word through
parative phiioi- a whole family of languages, we note not only the va¬
riety of forms it may have taken, but the different
usage and shades of meaning it acquired among different peoples.
The Hebrew words 2K, father, and |3, son, are traceable through
all the Semitic tongues, and maintain their common signification in
all. The Greek word for heart, Kapdia, appears also in the Sanskrit
hrul, Latin cor, Italian cuore, Spanish corazon, Portuguese, corapam,
French cceur, and English core. Some words, especially verbs, ac¬
quire new meanings as they pass from one language to another.
Hence the meaning which a word bears in Arabic or Syriac may not
be the meaning it was designed to convey in Hebrew. Thus the
Hebrew word “TO is frequently used in the Old Testament in the sense
to stand, to be firm, to stand up; and this general idea can be traced
in the corresponding word and its derivatives in the Arabic, Ethi-
opic (to erect a column, to establish), Chaldee (to rise up), Samari¬
tan and Talmudic; but in the Syriac it is the word commonly used
for baptism. Some say this was because the candidate stood while
he was baptized; others, that the idea associated with baptism was
that of confirming or establishing in the faith; while others believe
that the Syriac word is to be traced to a different root. Whatever
be the true explanation, it is easy to see that the same word may
have different meanings in cognate languages, and, therefore, a sig¬
nification which appears in Arabic or Syriac may be very remote
from that which the word holds in the Hebrew. Hence great cau¬
tion is necessary in tracing etymologies.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
179
It is well known that, in all languages, the origin of many
words has become utterly lost. The wonder, indeed, Rare words,
is that we are able to trace the etymology of such a and an- af Aey-
large proportion. The extensive literature of the Greek 0tl£va-
language enables the New Testament interpreter to ascertain
without much difficulty the roots and usage of most of the words
with which he has to deal. But the Old Testament Scriptures em¬
body substantially all the remains of the Hebrew language, and when
we meet with a word which occurs but once in the entire literature
extant, we may often be puzzled to know the exact meaning which
it was intended to convey. In such cases help from cognate
tongues is particularly important. The word D^D, in Gen. xxviii,
12, occurs nowhere else in Hebrew. The root appears to be ^6p, to
cast up, to raise / and from the same root comes the word njjpo, used
of public highways (Judg. xx, 32; Isa. xl, 3; lxii, 10), the paths of
locusts (Joel ii, 8), the courses of the stars (Judg. v, 20), and ter¬
races or stairways to the temple (2 Chron. ix, 11). The Arabic
word sullum confirms the sense of stairway or ladder , and leaves no
reasonable doubt as to the meaning of suttam in Gen. xxviii, 12.
Jacob saw, in his dream, an elevated ladder or stairway reaching
from the earth to the heavens. In determining the sense of such
arcai; Xeydfieva, or words occurring but once, we have to be guided
by the context, by analogy of kindred roots, if any appear in the
language, by ancient versions of the word in other languages, and
by whatever traces of the word may be found in cognate tongues.
One of the most noted of New Testament anal; Xeyoyeva is the
word eniovoiov in the Lord’s prayer, Matt, vi, 11; Luke
xi, 3. It occurs nowhere else in Greek literature. Two
derivations have been urged, one from eni and ievai , or the partici¬
ple of eneigi, to go toward or approach ; according to which the
meaning would be, “ give us our coming bread,” that is, bread fox
the coming day; to-morrow’s bread. This is etymologically possi¬
ble, and, on the ground of analogy, has much in its favour. But
this meaning does not accord with origegov, this day, occurring in
the same verse, nor with our Lord’s teaching in verse 34 of the
same chapter. The other derivation is from hni and ovoia, exist¬
ence, subsistence (from eifii, to be), and means that which is necessary
for existence, u our essential bread.” This latter seems by far the
more appropriate meaning.
Another difficult word is niariKog, used only in Mark xiv, 3, and
John xii, 3, to describe the nard (vdpdog) with which mauKi
Mary anointed the feet of Jesus. It is found in manu¬
scripts of several Greek authors (Plato, Gorgias, 455 a.; Aristotle,
180
PRINCIPLES OF
Rliet. i, 2) apparently as a false reading for ireioriKog, persuasive ;
but this signification would have no relevancy to nard. Scaliger
proposed the meaning pounded nard , deriving mariKog from nricroG),
to pound, a possible derivation, but unsupported by any thing anal¬
ogous! Some think the word may be a proper adjective denoting
the place from which the nard came; i. e., JPistic nard. The Vul¬
gate of John xii, 3, has nardi pistici. This use of the word, how¬
ever, is altogether uncertain. The Vulgate of Mark xiv, 3, has
spicati , as denoting the spikes or ears of the nard plant; hence the
word spikenard. But there is no good ground for accepting this
interpretation. Many derive the word from nivo) (or tuttlokg)), to
drink, and understand drinkable or liquid nard, and urge that sev¬
eral ancient writers affirm that certain anointing oils were used for
drinking. If such were the meaning here, however, the word
should refer to the ointment (fj,vpov), not the nard. The explana¬
tion best suited to the context, and not without warrant in Greek
usage, makes the word equivalent to marog, faithful, trustworthy ;
applied to a material object it would naturally signify genuine ,
pure, that on which one can rely.
In determining the meaning of compound words we may usually
resort to the lexical and grammatical analogy of lan- compound
guages. The signification of a compound expression is words*
generally apparent from the import of the different terms of which
it is compounded. Thus, the word elgrjvonoiot, used in Matt, v, 9,
is at once seen to be composed of elQrjvrj, peace , and noieo), to make ,
and signifies those who make (work or establish) peace. The mean¬
ing, says Meyer, is “not the peaceful {elqrjvuiOL, James iii, 17;
2 Macc. v, 25; or elprjvevovTeg, Sirach vi, 7), a meaning which does
not appear even in Pollux, i, 41, 152 (Augustine thinks of the moral
inner harmony; De W ette, of the inclination of the contemporaries
of Jesus to war and tumult; Bleek reminds us of Jewish party
hatred); but the founders of peace (Xen. Hist. Gr., vi, 3, 4; Pint.
Mor., p. 279 B.; comp. Col. i, 20; Prov. x, 10), who as such min¬
ister to God’s good pleasure, who is the God of peace (Rom. xvi,
20; 2 Cor. xiii, 11), as Christ himself was the highest founder of
peace (Luke ii, 14; John xvi, 33; Eph. ii, 14).” 1 Similarly we
judge of the meaning of edeAodpTycr/cem in Col. ii, 23, compounded
of edekw and 'dprjoittia, and signifying will worship , self -chosen wor¬
ship; TToXvonXayxvog, very compassionate (James v, 11); ovvav^dv-
ojiai, to grow together loith (Matt, xiii, 30); rpo7ro0opew, to bear as
a nourislier (Acts xiii, 18), and many other compounds, which, like
the above, occur but once in the New Testament.
1 Critical and Exegetical Hand-book to the Gospel of Matthew, in loco.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
181
CHAPTER IY.
THE USUS LOQUENDI.
Some words have a variety of significations, and hence, whatever
their primitive meaning, we are obliged to gather from the context,
and from familiarity with the usage of the language, the particular
sense which they bear in a given passage of Scripture. Many a
word in common use has lost its original meaning. _
. ° n The meaning of
How few of those who daily use the word sincere are words becomes
aware that it was originally applied to pure honey, from chariged'
which all wax was purged. Composed of the Latin words sine ,
without, and cera, wax, it appears to have been first used of honey
strained or separated from the wax-like comb. The word cunning
no longer means knowledge, or honourable skill, but is generally
used in a bad sense, as implying artful trickery. The verb let has
come to mean the very opposite of what it once did, namely to
hinder / and prevent, which was formerly used in the sense of going
before , so as to prepare the way or assist one, now means to inter¬
cept or obstruct. Hence the importance of attending to what is
commonly called the usus loquendi, or current usage of words as
employed by a particular writer, or prevalent in a particular age.
It often happens, also, that a writer uses a common word in some
special and peculiar sense, and then his own definitions must be
taken, or the context and scope must be consulted, in order to de¬
termine the precise meaning intended.
There are many ways by which the usus loquendi of a writer
may be ascertained. The first and simplest is when he Writer often
himself defines the terms he uses. Thus the word defines Ms own
dqr log, perfect, complete, occurring only in 2 Tim. iii, 17, terms'
is defined by what immediately follows: “That the man of God
may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto every good work.”
That is, he is made perfect or complete in this, that he is thorough¬
ly furnished and fitted, by the varied uses of the inspired Scripture,
to go forward unto the accomplishment of every good work. We
also find the word reXeioi, commonly rendered perfect , defined in
Heb. v, 14, as those “ who by practice have the senses trained unto a
discrimination of good and of evil.” They are, accordingly, the ma¬
ture and experienced Christians as distinguished from babes , vrjmou
182
PRINCIPLES OF
Compare verse 13, and 1 Cor. ii, 6. So also, in Rom. ii, 28, 29, the
apostle defines the genuine Jew and genuine circumcision as fol¬
lows: “For he is not a Jew, who is one outwardly ( sv rw (bavepti );
nor is that circumcision, which is outward in the fiesh : but he is a
Jew, who is one inwardly ( ev kpvtttco) ; and circumcision is that
of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of
men, but of God.”
But the immediate context, no less than the writer’s own defini-
immediate tions, generally serves to exhibit any peculiar usage of
context. words. Thus, Trvevfia, wind , spirit, is used in the New
Testament to denote the wind (John iii, 8), the vital breath (Rev.
xi, 11), the natural disposition or temper of mind (Luke ix, 55; Gal.
vi, 1), the life principle or immortal nature of man (John vi, 63),
the perfected spirit of a saint in the heavenly life (Heb. xii, 23),
the unclean spirits of demons (Matt, x, 1 ; Luke iv, 36), and the
Holy Spirit of God (John iv, 24; Matt, xxviii, 19; Rom. viii, 9-11).
It needs but a simple attention to the context, in any of these pas¬
sages, to determine the particular sense in which the word is used.
In John iii, 8, we note the two different meanings of rrvevua in one
and the same verse. “The wind (to irveypa) blows where it will,
and the sound of it thou hearest; but thou knowest not whence it
comes and whither it goes; so is every one who is born of the
Spirit” (ek tov TTveyparog). Bengel holds, indeed, that we should
here render irvevpa in both instances by spirit, and he urges that
the divine Spirit, and not the wind, has a will and a voice.1 Rut
the great body of interpreters maintain the common version. Nic-
odemus was curious and perplexed to know the hoio (nwg, verses 4
and 9) of the Holy Spirit’s workings, and as the Almighty of old
spoke to Job out of the whirlwind, and appealed to the manifold
mysteries of nature in vindication of his ways, so here the Son of
God appeals to the mystery in the motion of the wind. “ Wouldst
thou know the whence and whither of the Spirit, and yet thou
knowest not the origin and the end of the common wind? Where¬
fore dost thou not marvel concerning the air which breathes around
thee, and of which thou livest?” 2 “ Our Lord,” says Alford, “ might
have chosen any of the mysteries of nature to illustrate the point.
He takes that one which is above others symbolic of the action
of the Spirit, and which in both languages, that in which lie
spoke, as well as that in which his speech is reported, is expressed
by the same word. So that the words as they stand apply them¬
selves at once to the Spirit and his working, without any figure.”8
1 Gnomon of the New Testament, in loco.
fi Comp. Stier, Words of the Lord Jesus, in loco.
3 Greek Testament, in loco.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
IS 3
The word oroixdov, used in classical Greek for the upright post
of a sundial, then for an elementary sound in language (from let¬
ters standing in rows), came to be used almost solely in the plural,
ra OToixeia, in the sense of elements or rudiments. In 2 Pet. iii, 10
it evidently denotes the elements of nature, the component parts
of the physical universe; but in Gal. iv, 3, 9, as the immediate con¬
text shows, it denotes the ceremonials of Judaism, considered as
elementary object lessons, adapted to the capacity of children.
In this sense the word may also denote the ceremonial elements in
the religious cultus of the heathen world (compare verse 8).1
The enlightened Christian should grow out of these, and pass be¬
yond them, for otherwise they trammel, and become a system of
bondage. Compare also the use of the word in Col. ii, 8, 20 and
Heb. v, 12.
In connexion with the immediate context, the nature of the sub¬
ject may also determine the usage of a word. Thus, in Nature of th0
2 Cor. v, 1, 2, the reference of the words olnia, house, subject.
<jK7jvo<;, tabernacle, oiKodofirj, building, and olKTfrrjQiov, habitation, to
the body as a covering of the soul hardly admits of question. The
whole passage (verses 1-4) reads literally thus : “For we know that
if our house of the tabernacle upon earth were dissolved,
„ _ , . . 2 Cor. v, 1-4.
a building from God we have, a house not made with
hands, eternal, in the heavens. For also in this we groan, yearning
to be clothed upon with our habitation which is from heaven, since
indeed also {elye Kal) being clothed we shall not be found naked.
For, indeed, we who are in the tabernacle groan, being burdened,
in that we would not be unclothed, but clothed upon, to the end
that that which is mortal may be swallowed up by the life.,” Hodge
holds that the “building from God” is heaven itself, and argues
that in John xiv, 2, heaven is compared to a house of many man¬
sions; in Luke xvi, 9, to a habitation; and in Heb. xi, 10, and Hev.
xxi, 10, to a city of dwellings.2 But the scripture in question is too
explicit, and the nature of the subject too limited, to allow other
scriptures, like those cited, to determine its meaning. No one
doubts that the phrase, “our house of the tabernacle upon earth,”
refers to the human body, which is liable to dissolution. It is com¬
pared to a tent, or tabernacle (oKrjvog), and also to a vesture, thus
presenting us with a double metaphor. “The word tent, says
Stanley, “ lent itself to this imagery, from being used in later Greek
writers for the human body, especially in medical writers, who
seem to have been led to adopt the word from the skin -materials
1 Comp. Lightfoot‘s Commentary on Galatians iv, 11.
2 Commentary on Second Corinthians, in loco'.
184
PRINCIPLES OF
of which tents were composed. The explanation of this abrupt
transition from the figure of a house or tent to that of a garment,
may he found in the image, familiar to the apostle, both from his
occupations and his birthplace, of the tent of Cilician haircloth,
which might almost equally suggest the idea of a habitation and of
a vesture. Compare the same union of metaphors in Psa. civ, 2,
‘ Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment ; who stretch-
est out the heavens like a curtain’ (of a tent).”1
The main subject, then, is the present body considered as an
earthly house, a tabernacle upon earth. In it we groan; in it we
are under burden; in it we endure “the momentary lightness of our
affliction ” (to iragavriica eXatygov rr\q dhtyeog), which is mentioned
in chapter iv, 17, and which is there set in contrast with an “eter¬
nal weight of glory” ( aiuviov (3apog dofyg). To this earthly house,
heaven itself, whether considered as the house of many mansions
(John xiv, 2) or the city of God (Rev. xxi, 10), affords no true
antithesis. The true antithesis is the heavenly body, the vesture
of immortality, which is from God. For the opposite of our house
is the building from God • the one may be dissolved , the other is
eternal ; the one is upon earth (erdyeiog), the other is (not heaven
itself, but) in the heavens. The true parallel to the entire passage
before us is 1 Cor. xv, 47—54, where the earthly and the heavenly
bodies are contrasted, and it is said (ver. 53) “this corruptible
must be clothed with incorruption, and this mortal must be clothed
with immortality.”
The above example also illustrates how antithesis, contrast, or
contrast or op- opposition, may serve to determine the meaning of
position. words. A further instance may be cited from Rom.
viii, 5-8. In verse 4 the apostle has introduced the antithetic ex¬
pressions Kara oagtia, and Kara nvevfia, according to the flesh and
according to the spirit. He then proceeds to define, as by contrast,
the two characters. “ For they who are according to the flesh the
things of the flesh do mind (< ppovovoiv , think of care for), but they,
according to the spirit, the things of the spirit. For the mind of
the flesh is death, but the mind of the spirit life and peace. Be¬
cause the mind of the flesh is enmity toward God, for to the law of
God it does not submit itself, for it is not able; and they who are
in the flesh are not able to please God.” The spirit, throughout
this passage, is to be understood of the Holy Spirit: “the Spirit
of life in Christ Jesus,” mentioned in verse 2, which delivers the
sinner “from the law of sin and of death.” The being according
to the flesh , and the being in the flesh , are to be understood of
1 Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistles to the Corinthians, in loco.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
185
unregenerate and unsanctified human life, conditioned and controlled
by carnal principles and motives. This Scripture, and more that
might be cited, indicates, by detailed opposition and contrast, the
essential and eternal antagonism between sinful carnality and re¬
deemed spirituality in human life and character.
The nsns loque7idi of many words may be seen in the parallelisms
of Hebrew poetry. Whether the parallelism be synon- Hebrew paral
ymous or antithetic,1 it may serve to exhibit in an leiisms.
unmistakable way the general import of the terms employed.
Take, for example, the following passage from the eighteenth
Psalm, verses 6-15 (Ileb. 7-16):
6 In my distress I call Jehovah,
And to my God I cry ;
He hears from his sanctuary my voice,
And my cry before him comes into his ears.
7 Then shakes and quakes the land,
And the foundations of the mountains tremble,
And they shake themselves, for he was angry.
8 There went up a smoke in Ids nostril,
And fire from his mouth devours;
Hot coals glowed from him.
9 And he bows the heavens and comes down,
And a dense gloom under Ids feet;
10 And he rides upon a cherub, and flies,
And soars upon the wings of the wind.
11 He sets darkness his covering,
His pavilion round about him,
A darkness of waters, thick clouds of the skies.
12 From the brightness before him his thick clouds passed away,
Hail, and hot coals of fire.
13 Then Jehovah thunders in the heavens,
And the Most High gives forth his voice,
Hail, and hot coals of fire.
14 And he sends forth Ids arrows and scatters them,
And lightnings he shot, and puts them in commotion.
15 And the beds of the waters are seen,
And the foundations of the world are uncovered,
From thy rebuke, O Jehovah!
From the breath of the wind of thy nostril.
It requires but little attention here to observe how such words as
call, cry , he hears my voice , and my cry comes into his ears (verse 6),
mutually explain and illustrate one another. The same may be
said of the words shakes , quakes , tremble , and shake themselves , in
1 On Hebrew Parallelisms, see pp. 95-98.
186
PRINCIPLES OF
verse 7 ; smolce , fire, and coals in verse 8 ; rides , flies, and soars in
verse 10; arrows and lightnings, scatters and puts in commotion, in
verse 14; and so to some extent of the varied expressions of nearly
every verse.
Here, too, may be seen how subject and predicate serve to ex¬
plain one another. Thus, in 'verse 8, above, smoke goes
Subject, predi- 1 ’ 0 , , 10
cate, and ad- up, fire devours , hot coals glow. bo m Matt, v, id:
juncts. “if the salt become tasteless,” the sense of the verb
fj.wgavd'q, become tasteless, is determined by the subject akag, salt.
But in Rom. i, 22, the import of this same verb is to become fool¬
ish, as the whole sentence shows: “Professing to be wise, they
become foolish,” i. e., made fools of themselves. Tne word is
used in a similar signification in 1 Cor. i, 20: “Did not God make
foolish the wisdom of the world? ” The extent to which qualify¬
ing words, as adjectives and adverbs, serve to limit or define the
meaning is too apparent to call for special illustration.
A further and most important method of ascertaining the usus
„ . . loquendi is an extensive and careful comparison of sim-
parallel pas- ilar or parallel passages of Scripture. When a writer
sages. has ^reated a given subject in different parts of his
writings, or when different writers have treated the same subject, it
is both justice to the writers, and important in interpretation, to
collate and compare all that is written. The obscure or doubtful
passages are to be explained by what is plain and simple. A sub¬
ject may be only incidentally noticed in one place, but be treated
with extensive fulness in another. Thus, in Rom. xiii, 12, we have
the exhortation, “Let us put on the armour of light,” set forth
merely in contrast with “cast off the works of darkness;” but if
we inquire into the meaning of this “ armour of light,” how much
more fully and forcibly does it impress us when we compare the
detailed description given in Ephesians vi, 13-17: “Take up the
whole armour of God. . . . Stand, therefore, having girded your
loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteous¬
ness, and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel
of peace; withal taking up the shield of faith wherewith ye shall
be able to quench all the fiery darts of the evil one. And take the
helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word
of God.” Compare also 1 Thess. v, 8.
The meaning of the word (compare the Greek voog\ g) in Jer.
xvii, 9, must be determined by ascertaining its use in other pas¬
sages. The common version translates it “desperately wficked,”
but usage does not sustain this meaning. The primary sense of
the word appears to be incurably sick, or diseased. It is used in
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
Ib7
2 Sam. xii, 15, to describe the condition of David’s child when
smitten of the Lord so that it became very sick It is used
in reference to the lamentable idolatry of the kingdom of Israel
(Micah i, 9), where the common version renders, “ Her wound is in-
curable, and gives in the margin, “ She is grievously sick of her
wounds.” The same signification appears also in Job xxxiv, G:
“My wound (,Xn, wound caused by an arrow) is incurable.” In
Isa. xvii, 11, we have the thought of “incurable pain,” and in Jer.
xv, 18, we read, “ Wherefore has my pain been enduring, and my
stroke incurable?” Compare also Jer. xxx, 12, 15. In Jer. xvii,
16, the prophet uses this word to characterize the day of grievous
calamity as a day of mortal sickness (tPHX DV). In the nint h verse,
therefore, of the same chapter, where the deceitful heart is charac¬
terized by this word, which everywhere else maintains its original
sense of a diseased and incurable condition , we should also adhere
to the main idea made manifest by all these parallels: “Deceitful
is the heart above every thing; and incurably diseased is it; who
knows it ? 1
The usus loquendi of common words is, of course, to be as¬
certained by the manner and the connection in which General and
they are generally used. We feel at once the incon- fcmiiiar usage,
gruity of saying, “Adriansz or Lippersheim discovered the tele¬
scope, and Harvey invented the circulation of the blood.” We
know from familiar usage that discover applies to the finding out
or uncovering of that which was in existence before, but was hid¬
den from our view or knowledge, while the word invent is applica¬
ble to the contriving and constructing of something which had no
actual existence before. Thus, the astronomer invents a telescope,
and by its aid discovers the motions of the stars. The passage in
1 Cor. xiv, 34, 35, has been wrested to mean something else than
the prohibition of women’s speaking in the public assemblies of
churches. Some have assumed that the words churches and church
in these verses are to be understood of the business meetings of the
Christians, in which it was not proper for the women to take part.
But the entire context shows that the apostle has especially in
mind the worshipping assembly. Others have sought in the word
kahelv a peculiar sense, and, finding that it bears in classic Greek
writers the meaning of babble , prattle, , they have strangely taught
that Paul means to say: “Let your women keep silence in the
churches; for it is not permitted them to babble. . . . For it is a
shame for a woman to babble in church!” A slight examination
shows that in this same chapter the word XaXelv, to speak , occurs
1 On the importance of comparing parallel passages, see further in Chapter vlii.
188
PRINCIPLES OF
more than twenty times, and in no instance is there any necessity
or reason to understand it in other than its ordinary sense of dis¬
coursing , speaking . Who, for instance, would accuse Paul of say¬
ing, “ I thank God, I babble with tongues more than ye all ” (verse
18); or “let two or three of the prophets babble , and the others
judge” (verse 29)? Hence appears the necessity, in interpreta¬
tion, of observing the general usage rather than the etymology of
words.
In ascertaining the meaning of rare words, anal; A eyofieva, or
Ancient ver- words which occur but once, and words of doubtful
sions. import, the ancient versions of Scripture furnish an im¬
portant aid. For, as Davidson well observes, “An interpreter
cannot arrive at the right meaning of every part of the Bible by
the Bible itself. Many portions are dark and ambiguous. Even
in discovering the correct sense, no less than in defending the
truth, other means are needed. Numerous passages will be abso¬
lutely unintelligible without such helps as lie out of the Scriptures.
The usages of the Hebrew and Hebrew-Greek languages cannot be
fully known by their existing remains.1
In the elucidation of difficult words and phrases the Septuagint
translation of the Old Testament holds the first rank among the
ancient versions. It antedates all existing Hebrew manuscripts;
and paits of it, especially the Pentateuch, belong, without much
doubt, to the third century before the Christian era. Philo and
Josephus appear to have made more use of it than they did of the
Hebrew original; the Hellenistic Jews used it in their synagogues,
and the New Testament writers frequently quote from it. Being
made by Jewish scholars, it serves to show how before the time
of Christ the Jews interpreted their Scriptures. Next in import¬
ance to the Septuagint is the Vulgate, or Latin Version, largely
prepared in its present form by St. Jerome, who derived much
knowledge and assistance from the Jews of his time. After these
we place the Peshito-Syriac Version, the Targums, or Chaldee Par¬
aphrases of the Old Testament, especially that of Onkelos on the
Pentateuch, and Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the Prophets, and the
Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion.2 The other
ancient versions, such as the Arabic, Coptic, ^Ethiopic, Armenian,
and Gothic, are of less value, and, in determining the meaning of
rare words, cannot be relied on as having any considerable weight
or authority.
1 Hermeneutics, page 616.
2 On the history and character of all these ancient versions, see Harman’s. Keil’s
or Bleek’s “ Introduction ; ” also the various biblical dictionaries and cyclopedias.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
189
A study and comparison of these ancient versions will show that
they often differ very widely. In many instances it is The oM yer_
easy to see, in the light of modern researches, that the sions often dif¬
old translators fell into grave errors, and were often at fer*
a loss to determine the meaning of rare and doubtful words. When
the context, parallel passages, and several of the versions agree in
giving the same signification to a word, that signification may gen¬
erally be relied upon as the true one. But when the word is an
ana £ Xeyogevov, and the passage has no parallel, and the versions
vary, great caution is necessary lest we allow too much authority
to one or more versions, which, after all, may have been only con¬
jectural.
The following examples will illustrate the use, and the interest
attaching to the study, of the ancient versions. In the Authorized
English Version of Gen. i, 2, the words irh} ^rin are translated,
without form and void. The Targum of Onkelos has
waste and empty; the Vulgate: inanis et vacua , empty and void ;
Aquila: Kevcjga teal ovdev, emptiness and nothing. Thus, all these
versions substantially agree, and the meaning of the Hebrew words
is now allowed to be desolation and emptiness. The Syriac merely
repeats the Hebrew words, but the Septuagint reads dogarog Kal
dtiaraoKevaoTog, invisible and unformed , and cannot be allowed to
set aside the meaning presented in all the other versions.
In Gen. xlix, 6, the Septuagint gives the more correct translation
of npy, they houghed an ox, evevgoKomjoav ravgov ; but the Chal¬
dee, Syriac, Vulgate, Aquila, and Symmachus read, like the Au¬
thorized Version, they digged down a wall. Here, however, the au¬
thority of versions is outweighed by the fact that, in all other
passages where the Piel of this word occurs, it means to hamstring
or hough an animal. Compare Josh, xi, 6, 9; 2 Sam. viii, 4; 1 Chron.
xviii, 4. Where the usus loquendi can thus be determined from the
language itself, it has more weight than the testimony of many
versions.
The versions also differ in the rendering of rDSTV in Psa. xvi, 4.
This word elsewhere (Job ix, 28; Psa. cxlvii, 3; Prov. x, 10; xv, 13)
always means sorrow ; but the form means idols, and the Chal¬
dee, Symmachus, and Theodotion so render rDSW iu Psa. xvi, 4: they
multiply their idols, or many are their idols. But the Septuagint,
Vulgate, Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, and Aquila, render the word sor¬
rows, and this meaning is best sustained by the usage of the lan¬
guage.
In Cant, ii, 12, TJ?*n ny is rendered by the Septuagint icaigdg rrjg
Togrig, time of the cutting ; Symmachus, time of the pruning {aXa-
190
PRINCIPLES OF
devaecog) ; so also the V ulgate, tempus putationis . Most modern in¬
terpreters, however, discard these ancient versions here, and under¬
stand the words to mean, the time of song is come / not merely or par¬
ticularly the singing of birds , as the English version, hut all the
glad songs of springtime, in which shepherds and husbandmen alike
rejoice. In this interpretation they are governed by the considera¬
tion that TDT and niTEt signify song and songs in 2 Sam. xxiii, 1 ;
Job xxxv, 10; Psa. xcv, 2; cxix, 54; Isa. xxiv, 16; xxv, 5, and that
when “ the blossoms have been seen in the land” the pruning time
is altogether past.
In Isa. lii, 13 all the ancient versions except the Chaldee render the
word b'fw in the sense of acting vnsely. This fact gives great weight
to that interpretation of the word, and it ought not to be set aside
by the testimony of one version, and by the opinion, which is open
to question, that ^3^' is in some passages equivalent to n^vn, to
prosper.
From the above examples it may be seen what judgment and
caution are necessary in the use of the ancient versions of the Bible.
In fact, no specific rules can safely be laid down to govern us in
the use of them. Sometimes the etymology of a word, or the con¬
text, or a parallel passage may have more weight than all the ver¬
sions combined; while in other instances the reverse may be true.
Where the versions are conflicting, the context and the analogy of
the language must generally be allowed to take the precedence.
In ascertaining the meaning of many Greek words the ancient
Glossaries and glossaries of Hesychius, Suidas, Photius, and others are
scholia. useful ; but as they treat very few of the obscure words
of the New Testament, they are of comparatively little value to
the biblical interpreter. Scholia, or brief critical notes on portions
of the New Testament, extracted chiefly from the writings of the
Greek Fathers, such as Origen and Chrysostom, occasionally serve
a good purpose,1 but they have been superseded by the more thor¬
ough and scholarly researches of modern times, and the results of
this research are embodied in the leading critical commentaries and
biblical lexicons of the present day. The Rabbinical commentaries
of Aben-Ezra, Jarchi, Kimchi, and Tanchum are often found ser¬
viceable in the exposition of the Old Testament.
1 The commentaries of Theodoret and Theophylact are largely composed of extracts
from Chrysostom. To the same class belong the commentaries of Euthymius, Ziga-
benus, (Ecumenius, Andreas, and Arethas. The Catenae of the Greek Fathers by
Procopius, Olympiodorus, and Nicephorus treat several books of the Old Testament.
The celebrated Catena Aurea of Thomas Aquinas covers the Four Gospels, and was
translated and published at Oxford in 1845 bv, J. H. Newman.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
191
CHAPTER V.
SYNONYMES.
Words, being the conventional signs and representatives of ideas,
are changeable in both form and meaning by reason of the changes
constantly taking place in human society. In process of time the
same word will be applied to a variety of uses, and come to have a
variety of meanings. Thus, the name board ' another
J 17 7 . . 7 . Some words
form of the word broad , was originally applied to a piece have many
of timber, hewed or sawed so as to form a wide, thin meamn£s*
plank. It was also applied to a table on which food was placed,
and it became common to speak of gathering around the festive
board. Thence it came by a natural process to be applied to the
food which was placed upon the table, and men were said to work
or pay for their board. By a similar association the word was also
applied to a body of men who were wont to gather around a table
to transact business, and hence we have board of trustees, board
of commissioners. The word is also used for the deck of a vessel;
hence the terms on board ', overboard, and some other less common
nautical expressions. Thus it often happens, that the original
meaning of a word falls into disuse, and is forgotten, while
later meanings become current, and find a multitude and variety of
applications. But while a single word may thus come to have many
meanings, it also happens that a number of different words are used
to designate the same, or nearly the same, thing. By such a multi¬
plication of terms a language becomes greatly enriched, and capable
of expressing more minutely the different shades and aspects of any
particular idea. Thus in English we have the words geyeral wordg
wonder, surprise , admiration, astonishment, and amaze- of like mean-
ment, all conveying the same general thought, but distin- mg*
guishable by different shades of meaning. The same is true of the
words axiom, maxim, aphorism, apothegm, adage, proverb, byword,
saying, and saw. Such words are called synonymes, and they
abound in all cultivated languages. The biblical interpreter needs
discernment and skill to determine the nice distinctions and shades
of meaning attaching to Hebrew and Greek synonymes. Often the
exact point and pith of a passage will be missed by failing to make
the proper discrimination between synonymous expressions. There
192
PRINCIPLES OF
are, for instance, eleven different Hebrew words used in the Old
Testament for kindling a fire , or setting on fire, and seven Greek
words used in the New Testament for prayer and yet a careful
study of these several terms will show that they all vary somewhat
in signification, and serve to set forth so many different shades of
thought or meaning.
We take, for illustration, the different Hebrew words which are
used to convey the general idea of killing , or puttinq
Hebrew words J
for putting to to death. I he verb pBj? occurs but three times in the
death. Hebrew Scriptures, and means in every case to kill by
putting an end to one’s existence. The three instances are the fol¬
lowing: Job xiii, 15, “If he kill me,” or “Lo, let him kill me;” and
Job xxiv, 14, “At light will the murderer rise up; he will kill the
poor and needy;” and Psa. cxxxix, 19, “Thou wilt kill the wicked,
O God.” The primary idea of the w'ord, according to
_It Gesenius, is that of cutting ; hence cutting off; making
an end of by destruction. So the noun is used in Obadiah 9 in
connexion with rn3, cut off — “shall be cut off by slaughter ;” i. e.,
by a general destruction. In the Chaldee chapters of Daniel the
verb i?t?p is used in a variety of forms seven times, but it seems to
retain in every instance essentially the same meaning as the Hebrew
verb. The simple fact of the killing or cutting off is stated without
any necessary implication as to the method or occasion of the act.
The word more commonly used to denote putting to death is (the
]TEn Hiphil, Hophal, and some of the rarer forms of) DID, to
D^n die’ Tlie grammatical structure of the language en¬
ables us at once to perceive that the primary idea in
the use of this word is that of causing to die. Thus, in Josh, x, 26
and xi, 17, it is used to denote the result of violent smiting (PDJ) :
“Joshua smote them and caused them to die;” “All their kings he
took, and he smote them and caused them to die.” Compare 1 Sam.
xvii, 50; xxii, 18; 2 Sam. xviii, 15; 2 Kings xv, 10, 14. In short,
the distinguishing idea of this word, as used for killing , is that of
putting to death, or causing to die, by some violent and deadly
measure. In this sense the word is used in the Old Testament
Scriptures over two hundred times. The prominent thought in tap
is merely that of cutting off; getting one out of the way ; while in
rPEH and D^P! the idea of death, as the result of some fatal means
and procedure, is more noticeable. The murderer or the assassin
kills (tai?) his victim or enemy; the warrior, the ruler, and the Lord
himself, causes to die, or puts to death (JVftH) whom he will, and he
1 Namely: 7IK, pjn, mn, ffiT, ip', pfetf, mp, “Ittp, Spfr.
2 Eypy, 77 pooevxv, Serial^ Ivrevfa, evxapiaria , cuTTjpa, and UeTripia.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
193
performs the act by some certain means (specified or unspecified),
which will accomplish the desired result. The latter word is ac¬
cordingly used of public executions, the slaughter involved in war,
and the putting to death for the maintenance of some principle,
or the attainment of some ulterior end. It is never used to ex¬
press the idea of murder; but God himself says: “I put to death”
(Deut. xxxii, 39). Compare 1 Sam. ii, 6 ; 2 Kings v, 7; Hosea
ix, 16.
Another word for killing is :nn. Unlike DVpn, it may be used for
private homicide, or murder (Gen. iv, 8; xxvii, 41), or
assassination (2 Chron. xxiv, 25 ; 2 Kings x, 9), or gen- ^
eral slaughter and massacre (Judges viii, 17; Esther ix, 15). The
slaying it denotes may be done by the sword (1 Kings ii, 32), or by
a stone (Judges ix, 54), or a spear (2 Sam. xxiii, 21), or by the word
of J ehovah (Hos. vi, 5), or even by grief, or a viper’s tongue (Job
v, 2; xx, 16). But the characterizing idea of the word, as distin¬
guished from JVpn and seems to be that of wholesale or vengeful
slaughter . Thus Jehovah slew all the firstborn of Egypt (Exod.
xiii, 15), but the slaughter was a vengeful judgment-stroke, a
plague. Thus Simeon and Levi slew the men of Shechem, and that
slaughter was a cruel and vindictive massacre (Gen. xxxiv, 26 ;
xlix, 6). This word is used of the slaughter of Jehovah’s prophets
by Jezebel, and of the prophets of Baal by Elijah (1 Kings xix,
1, 10), and in this sense generally, whether the numbers slain be
few or many. Compare Judges viii, 17, 21; Esther ix, 6, 10, 12;
Ezek. ix, 6. In Isa. xxii, 13 the word is used of the slaughter
of oxen, but the context shows that the slaughter contemplated
was on a large scale, at a time of feasting and revelry. So,
again, in Psa. lxxviii, 47, we read: “He slays with hail their
vines,” but the passage is poetical, and the thought is that of a
sweeping destruction, by which vines and trees, as well as other
things that suffered in the plagues of Egypt, were, so to speak,
slaughtered.
nvi has the primary signification of crushing , a violent breaking
in pieces, and is generally used to denote the act of
murder or manslaughter in any degree. This is the
word used in the commandment, “ Thou shalt not commit murder ”
(Exod. xx, 13; Deut. v, 17); less properly translated, “Thou shalt
not kill,” for often to kill is not necessarily to murder . In Num.
xxxv the participial form of the word is used over a dozen times
to denote the manslayer , who flees to a city of refuge, and twice
(verses 27, 30) the verb is used to denote the execution of such
manslayer by the avenger of blood.
13
194
PRINCIPLES OF
The word HStp is used for the slaying of animals , especially in
preparation for a feast. It corresponds more nearly with
the word butcher. Thus, when Joseph’s brethren came,
bringing Benjamin with them, Joseph commanded the ruler of his
house to bring the men to the house, and kill a killing (rDD nitp,
Gen. xliii, 16). Compare 1 Sam. xxv, 11; Prov. ix, 2. When the
word is applied to the slaughter of men it is always with the idea
that they are slaughtered or butchered like so many animals (Psa.
xxxvii, 14; Jer. li, 40; Lam. ii, 21; Ezek. xxi, 10, (15).
A kindred word is PQT, used of the sacrificing of animals for offer-
niT ings. It is thus ever associated with the idea of im¬
molation, and the derivative noun !"GT means a sacrificial
offering to God. “ This verb,” says Gesenius, “ is not used of the
priests as slaughtering victims in sacrifice, but of private persons
offering sacrifices at their own cost.” Compare Gen. xxxi, 54; Exod.
viii, 29, (25); 1 Sam. xi, 15; 2 Chron. vii, 4; xxxiii, 17; Ezek. xx,
28; Hos. xiii, 2; Jon. i, 16.
Another word, constantly used in connection with the killing of
animals for sacrifice, is but it differs from rnr
especially in this, that the latter emphasizes rather the
idea of sacrifice , while Eri£> points more directly to the slaughter of
the victim. Hence ro? is often used intransitively, in the sense
of offering sacrifice , without specifying the object sacrificed; but
is always transitive, and connected with the object slain.
This latter word is often applied to the slaying of persons (Gen.
xxii, 10; 1 Kings xviii, 40; 2 Kings x, 7, 14; Isa. Ivii, 5; Ezek.
xvi, 21), but in a sacrificial sense, as the immediate context shows.
Judg. xii, 6, would seem to be an exception, but the probable
thought there is that the Ephraimites who could not pronounce the
“ Shibboleth ” were slain as so 'many human sacrifices.
Thus each of these seven Hebrew words, all of which involve the
idea of killing or slaughter , has its own distinct shade of meaning
and manner of usage.
The Hebrew language has twelve different words to express the
Hebrew words idea of sin. First, there is the verb Ntpn, which, like
the Greek agaprdvo), means, primarily, to miss a mark,
and is so used (in Hiphil) in Judg. xx, 16, where mention is made
of seven hundred left handed Benjamites who could sling stones
Nftn U and n°t miss.” In Prov. viii, 36, it is con¬
trasted with to find (verse 35): “They that find
me, find life; . . . and he that misses me wrongs his soul.” Com¬
pare also Prov. xix, 2: “He that hastens with his feet misses ;”
that is, makes a misstep; gets off the track. The exact meaning
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
195
in Job v, 24, is more doubtful: “Thou shalt visit thy pasture (or
habitation), and shalt not miss” The sense, according to most in¬
terpreters, is: Thou shalt miss nothing; in visiting thy pasture and
thy flocks thou shalt find nothing gone; no sheep or cattle missing.
It is easy to see how the idea of making a misstep, or missing a
mark, passed over into the moral idea of missing some divinely ap¬
pointed mark; hence failure, error , shortcoming , an action that has
miscarried. Accordingly, the noun Ktpn means fault , error , sin. It
is interesting to note hpw the Piel, or intensive form of the verb
Ntpn, conveys the idea of making an offering for sin (compare Lev.
Vi, 26, (19); ix, 15), or cleansing by some ceremonial of atonement
(Exod. xxix, 36; Lev. xiv, 52); as if the thought of bearing the
penalty of sin, and making it appear loathsome and damnable, were
to be made conspicuous by an intense effort to purge away its guilt
and shame. Hence arose the common usage of the noun riNtpn in
the sense of sin offering.
We should next compare the words |iy, ^.jy, and |JK. The first is
from the root njy, to twist , to make crooked , to distort ,
and signifies moral perversity. In the English version
it is commonly translated iniquity. It indicates the in¬
herent badness of a perverted soul, and in Psa. xxxii, 5, we have
the expression: Thou hast taken away the iniquity (fiy) of my sin”
(’TlNtsn). Closely cognate with |iy is h)V, from the root b\V, to turn
away , to distort , and would seem to differ from it in usage by
being applied rather to outward action than to inner character; jiy
indicates specially what a sinner is, what he does. The primary
sense of on the other hand, is emptiness, or nothingness. It is
used of idolatry (1 Sam. xv, 23; Isa. xli, 29; lxvi, 3; Hos. x, 5, 8;
Zech. x, 2), and in the English version is occasionally translated
vanity (Job xv, 35; Psa. x, 7; Prov. xxii, 8). It denotes wicked¬
ness, or sin, as something that has no enduring reality or value. It
is a false, vain appearance; a deceitful shadow, destitute of stabil¬
ity. So, then, in these three words we have suggested to us bad
character, bad action, and the emptiness of sinful pursuits.
The word which especially denotes evil, or that which is essen¬
tially bad, is jn, with its cognate yi and njn, all from
the root yin, to break, shatter , crush, crumble. It indicates
a character or quality which, for all useful or valuable purposes, is
uttdMy broken and ruined. Thus the noun yi, in Gen. xli, 19, de¬
notes the utter badness of the seven famine-smitten heifers of
Pharaoh’s dream, and is frequently used of the wickedness of wrong
action (Deut. xxviii, 20; Psa. xxviii, 4; Isa. i, 16; Jer. xxiii, 2;
xliv, 22; IIos. ix, 15). The words VI. and nyj, besides being frequently
py, iny, and
196
PRINCIPLES OF
employed in the same sense (compare Gen. vi, 5; viii, 21; 1 Kings
ii, 44; Jer. vii, 12, 24; Zech. i, 4; Mai. ii, 17), are also used to de¬
note the evil or harm which one may do to another (Psa. xv, 3;
xxi, 11; xxx y, 4; lxxi, 13). In all the uses of this word the idea of
a ruin or a breach is in some way traceable. The wickedness of
one’s heart is in the moral wreck or ruin it discloses. The evil of a
sinner’s wicked action is a breach of moral order.
Another aspect of sinfulness is brought out in the word by'O and
its noun bv'O. It is usually translated trespass , but the
fundamental thought is treachery , some covert and
faithless action. Thus it is used of the unfaithfulness of an adul¬
terous woman toward her husband (Num. v, 12), of the taking
strange wives (Ezra x, 2, 10), of the olfense of Achan (Josh, vii, 1 ;
xxii, 20; 1 Chron. ii, 7), and generally of unfaithfulness toward
God (Deut. xxxii, 51; Josh, xxii, 16; 2 Chron. xxix, 6; Ezek. xx,
27; xxxix, 23). By this word any transgression is depicted as a
plotting of treachery, or an exhibition of unfaithfulness to some
holy covenant or bond.
By a transposition of the first two letters of byn we have the
bftV word tay, which is used of the exhaustive toils of mor¬
tal life and their attendant sorrow and misery. In Num.
xxiii, 21, and Isa. x, 1, it is coupled in parallelism with empti¬
ness, vanity , and maybe regarded as the accompaniment of the
vain pursuits of men. It is that labour , which, in the book of Eccle¬
siastes, where the word occurs thirty-four times, is shown both to
begin and end in “vanity and vexation of spirit;” a striving after
the wind (Eccles. i, 14; ii, 11, 17, 19).
The word “i^y, to cross over , like the Greek 7 Tapa(3aivo), is often
-Qy used metaphorically of passing over the line of moral
obligation , or going aside from it. Hence it corre¬
sponds closely with the word transgress. In Josh, vii, 11, 15; Judg.
ii, 20; 2 Kings xviii, 12; Hos. vi, 7 ; viii, 1, it is used of transgressing
a covenant; in Deut. xxvi, 13, of a commandment; in 1 Sam. xv, 24,
of the word (lit., mouth ) of Jehovah; and in Isa. xxiv, 5, of the law.
Thus words of counsel and warning, covenants, commandments,
laws, may be crossed over , passed by, walked away from ; and this
is the peculiar aspect of human perversity which is designated by
the word "Qy, to transgress.
The two words WB and yyi may be best considered together.
yL*>E) and former conveys the idea of revolt, rebellion / the
~ T latter disturbance, tumultuous rage. The former word
is used, in 1 Kings xii, 19, of Israel’s revolt from the house of Da¬
vid; and in 2 Kings i, 1; iii, 7; viii, 20, 22; 2 Chron. xxi, 10, of the
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
197
rebellions of Moab, Edom, and Libnah; and the noun 5J$3, which is
usually rendered transgression, should always be understood as a
fault or trespass considered as a revolt or an apostasy from some
bond of allegiance. Hence it is an aggravated form of sin, and in
Job xxxiv, 37, we find the significant expression: “He adds upon
his sin rebellion.” The primary thought in JJBh may be seen from
Isa. lvii, 20, where it is said: “The wicked (D\yghn) are like the
troubled tossed, agitated ) sea; for rest it cannot, and its waters
will cast up toss about) mud and mire.” So also in Job
xxxiv, 29, the Hiphil of the verb VEh is put in contrast with the
Hiphil of to rest , to be quiet : “ Let him give rest, and who will
give trouble ?n The wicked man is one who is ever troubled and
troubling. His counsels (Psa. i, 1), his plots (Psa. xxxvii, ]2), his
dishonesty and robberies (Psa. xxxvii, 21; cxix, 61), and manifold
iniquities (Prov. v, 22), are a source of confusion and disturbance
in the moral world, and that continually.
It remains to notice briefly the word DEW, the primary idea of
which seems to be that of guilt or blame involved in and
committing a trespass through ignorance or negligence,
and nag* (60$, j:k>), with which it is frequently associated. The two
words appear together in Lev. iv, 13: “If the whole congregation
of Israel err through ignorance (UB^), and the matter be hidden
from the eyes of the assembly, and they have done with one from
all the commandments of Jehovah what should not have been done,
and have become guilty ” (WN). Compare verses 22, 27, and chap¬
ter v, 2, 3, 4, 17, 19. Hence it was natural that the noun
should become the common word for the trespass offering which was
required of those who contracted guilt by negligence or error.
For the passages just cited, and their contexts, show that any vio¬
lation or infringement of a divine commandment, whether com¬
mitted knowingly or not, involved one in fault, and the guilt, con¬
tracted unconsciously, required for its expiation a trespass offering
as soon as the sin became known. Accordingly, it will be seen that
and its derivatives, point to errors committed through igno¬
rance (Job vi, 24; Hum. xv, 27), while D m denotes rather the
guiltiness contracted by such errors, and felt and acknowledged
when the sin becomes known.
A study of the divine names used in the Hebrew Scriptures is
exceedingly interesting and suggestive. They are Ad- ^ names
onai, El, Elah, Elim, Eloah, Elion, Eloliim, Shaddai,
Jah, and Jehovah. All these may be treated as synonymes, and
yet each divine name has its peculiar concept and its correspond¬
ing usage.
198
PRINCIPLES OF
The synonymes of the New Testament furnish an equally inter¬
esting and profitable field of study. Many words appear to be
used interchangeably, and yet a careful examination will usually
show that each conveys its own distinct idea. Take, for instance,
K aivog and the two Greek words for new , Kaivog and veog. Both
are applied to the new man (comp. Eph. ii, 15 ; Col.
iii, 10), the new covenant (Heb. ix, 15 ; xii, 24), and new wine (Matt,
ix, 17; xxvi, 29) ; but a wider comparison shows that naivog denotes
what is new in quality or hind , in opposition to something that has
already existed and been known, used, and worn out; while veog
denotes what is new in time , what has not long existed, but is
young and fresh. Both words occur in Matt, ix, 17: “They put
new ( veov ) wine into new (naivovg) skins.” The new wine is here
conceived as fresh, or recently made; the skins as never used be¬
fore. The skin bottles may have beeik old or new as to age, but
in order to preserve wine just made, they must not have been put
to that use before. But the wine referred to in Matt, xxvi, 29, is
to be thought of rather as a new hind of wine: “I will not drink
henceforth o,f this fruit of the vine until that day w hen I drink it
with you new ( kcuvov , new in a higher sense and quality), in the
kingdom of my Father.” So also Joseph’s tomb, in which our
Lord’s body was laid, was called a new one ( Kaivog , Matt, xxvii, 60 ;
John xix, 41), not in the sense that it had recently been hewn from
the rock, but because no one had ever been laid in it before. The
new ( naivrj ) commandment of John xiii, 34 is the law of love,
which, proceeding from Christ, has a new aspect and scope; a depth
and beauty and fulness which it had not before. But when John
wrote his epistles of brotherly love it had become “an old command¬
ment” (1 John ii, 7), long familiar, even “the word which ye heard
from the beginning.” But then he (verse 8) adds: “Again, a new
commandment (evtoXt]v fcaivrjv) I write to you, which thing is true
in him and in you; because the darkness is passing away and the
true light is already shining.” The passing away of the old darkness
and the growing intensity of the true light, according to proper
Christian experience, continually develop and bring out new glories
in the old commandment. This thing (o), namely, the fact that
the old commandment is also new, is seen to be true both in Christ
and in the believer ; because in the latter the darkness keeps pass¬
ing away, and in the former the true light shines more and more.
In like manner the tongues mentioned in Mark xvi, 17 are called
tiaivat , because they would be new to the world, “ other tongues ”
(Acts ii, 4), unlike any thing in the way of speaking which had been
known before. So, too, the new name, new Jerusalem, new song,
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
199
new heaven and new earth (Rev. ii, 17; iii, 12; v, 9; xiv, 3; xxi, 1),
to designate which tccuvog is used, are the renewed, ennobled, and
glorious apocalyptic aspects of the things of the kingdom of God.
The word vsog is used nine times in the Synoptic Gospels of wine
i ecently made. In 1 Cor. v, 7, it is applied to the new lump of
leaven, as that which has been recently prepared. It is used of the
new man in Col. iii, 10, where the putting on the new man is spoken
of as a work recently accomplished; whereas naivoe is used in Eph.
ii, 15, denoting rather the character of the work accomplished. So
the new covenant may be conceived of as new, or recent (Heb.
xii, 24), in opposition to that long ago given at Sinai, while it may
also be designated as new in the sense of being different from the
old (Matt, xxvi, 28 ; 2 Cor. iii, 6), which is worn out with age, and
ready to vanish away (Heb. viii, 13). Let it be noted, also, that
“newness of life” and “newness of spirit” (Rom. vi, 4; vii, 6), are
expressed by Katvcrrrjg ; but youth is denoted by veorrfc (Matt, xix 20 ;
Mark x, 20 ; Luke xviii, 21 ; Acts xxvi, 4 ; 1 Tim. iv, 12).
The two- words for life , (5 tog and far), are easily distinguishable
as used in the New Testament. B tog denotes the pres- B< ,
ent human life considered especially with reference to
modes and conditions of existence. It nowhere means lifetime. , or
period of life ; for the true text of 1 Pet. iv, 3, which was supposed
to convey this meaning, omits the word. It commonly denotes the
means of living ; that on which one depends as a means of support,
ing life. Thus the poor widow cast into the treasury her whole
living (fitov, Mark xii, 44). Another woman spent all her living on
physicians (Luke viii, 14). The same meaning appears in Luke
xv, 12, 30; xxi, 4. In Luke viii, 14 and 1 John iii, 17 it denotes,
rather, life as conditioned by riches, pleasures, and abundance. In
1 Tim. ii, 2; 2 Tim. ii, 4 ; 1 John ii, 16 it conveys the idea of the
manner and style in which one spends his life ; and so, in all its
uses, (3iog has reference solely to the life of man as lived in this
world. Zcjt), on the other hand, is the antithesis of death {favarog),
and while used occasionally in the New Testament in the sense of
physical existence (Acts xvii, 25; 1 Cor. iii, 22; xv, 19; Phil, i, 20;
James iv, 14), is defined by Cremer as “the kind of existence pos¬
sessed by individualized being, to be explained as Self-governing
existence , which God is, and man has or is said to have , and which,
on its part, is supreme over all the rest of creation.”1 Tholuck
1 Biblico-Theological Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 272. Cremer goes on to
show how from the sense of physical existence the word is also used to denote a perfect
and abiding antithesis to death (Heb. vii, 16), a positive freedom from death (Acts
ii, 28 ; 2 Cor. v, 4), and the sum of the divine promises under the Gospel, “ belonging
200
PRINCIPLES OF
observes: “The words ^ and tiavarog (death), along with the
cognate verbs, although appearing in very various applications, are
most clearly explained when we suppose the following views to
have lain at the basis of them. God is the life eternal (far) aidyvtog,
1 John v, 20), or the light, (tyug, 1 John i, 5t; James i, V). Beings
made in the image of God have true life only in fellowship with
him. Wherever this life is absent there is death. Accordingly the
idea of far/ comprehends holiness and bliss, that of ■davarog sin and
miser y. Now as both the and the tiavarog manifest themselves
in different degrees, sometimes under different aspects, the words
acquire a variety of significations. The highest grade of the is
the life which the redeemed live with the Saviour in the glorious
kingdom of heaven. Viewed on this side, denotes continued
existence after death, communion with God, and blessedness, of
which each is implied in the other.”1
In Jesus’ conversation with Simon Peter at the sea of Tiberias
Ayandu and (John xxi, 15-17), we have four sets of synonymes.
<j>c?ie(j. First, the words dyanae) and (piXeo), for which we have
no two corresponding English words. The former, as opposed to
the latter, denotes a devout reverential love , grounded in reason
and admiration. on the other hand, denotes the love of a
warm personal affection, a tender emotional love of the heart. “The
first expresses,” says Trench, “a more reasoning attachment, of
choice and selection (diligere=deligere), from seeing in the object
upon whom it is bestowed that which is worthy of regard ; or else
from a sense that such was fit and due toward the person so regard¬
ed, as being a benefactor, or the like; while the second, without
being necessarily an unreasoning attachment, does yet oftentimes
give less account of itself to itself ; is more instinctive, is more of
the feelings, implies more passion.” 2 The range of <fa Xecj, accord¬
ing to Cremer, is wider than that of dyandio, but dyanae) stands
high above (piXee) on account of its moral import. It involves the
moral affection of conscious, deliberate will, and may therefore be
depended on in moments of trial. But <j)iXe(*y, involving the love of
natural inclination and impulse, may be variable.3 Observe, then,
to those to whom the future is sure, already in possession of all who are partakers of
the New Testament salvation, ‘ that leadeth unto life,’ and who already in this life
begin life eternal.” (Matt, vii, 14; Tit. i, 2; 2 Tim. i, 1; Acts xi, 18; xiii, 48). He
further observes, that in the writings of Paul “ is the substance of Gospel preach¬
ing, the final aim of faith (1 Tim. i, 16);” in the writings of John it “is the subject
matter and aim of divine revelation.” Comp. John v, 39 ; 1 John v, 20 ; etc.
1 Commentary on Romans v, 12.
3 Synonymes of the New Testament, sub verbo.
3 Comp. Biblico-Theological Lexicon, pp. 11, 12.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
201
the use of these words in the passage before us. “ Jesus says to Simon
Peter, Simon, son of Jonah, dost thou devoutly love ( dyangg ) me more
than these? He says to him, Yea, Lord, thou knowest ( oldag , seest)
that I tenderly love (< pihco ) thee.” In his second question our Lord,
in tender regard for Simon, omits the words more than these , and sim¬
ply asks: “Dost thou devoutly love (ayanaq) me?” To this Simon
answers precisely as before, not venturing to assume so lofty a love
as ayanaG) implies. In his third question (verse 17) our Lord uses
Simon’s word, thus approaching nearer to the heart and emotion of
the disciple: “Simon, son of Jonah, dost thou tenderly love ((pihdg)
me?” The change of word, as well as his asking for the third
time, filled Peter with grief (e/Urn-T/d^), and he replied with great
emotion : “ O Lord, all things thou knowest (oldag, seest, dost per¬
ceive), thou dost surely know (yivtiofceig, art fully cog- o 16a and yi-
nizant of the fact, hast full assurance by personal vuoicu.
knowledge) that I tenderly love ((piX&) thee.” The distinction be¬
tween olda (from side), to see , to perceive) and ytvd)OKG) (to obtain
and have knowledge of) is very subtle, and the words appear to be
often used interchangeably. According to Crerner, “ there is mere¬
ly the difference that ytvGJOtteiv implies an active relation, to wit, a
self-reference of the knower to the object of his knowledge ; where¬
as, in the case of eldevai , the object has simply come within the
sphere of perception, within the knower’s circle of vision.”1 As
used by Peter the two words differ, in that yLvuo/cG) expresses a
deeper and more positive knowledge than olda.
According to many ancient authorities we have in this passage
three different words to denote lambs and sheep. In verse 15 the
word is dpvia, lambs, in verse 16 npofiara, sheep, and in \*±pvia^p6pa-
verse 17 irgofiaria, sheeplings, or choice sheep. The dif- ra, and re¬
ference and distinct import of these several words it is PdTla-
not difficult to understand. The lambs are those of tender age;
the young of the flock. The sheep are the full-grown and strong.
The sheeplings, npopana, are the choice full-grown sheep, those
which deserve peculiar tenderness and care, with special reference,
perhaps, to the milch-ewes of the flock. Compare Isa. xl, 11. Then,
in connexion with these different words for sheep we have also the
synonymes fido/co) and 7r oiuaivo), to denote the various b ogkcj and
cares and work of the shepherd. B ookg) means to feed, notfiaivu.
and is used especially of a shepherd providing his flock with pas¬
ture, leading them to the field, and furnishing them with food,
n oigaivo) is a word of wider significance, and involves the whole
office and work of a shepherd. It comes more nearly to our word
1 Biblico-Tlieological Lexicon, p. 230.
202
PRINCIPLES OF
tend ' and includes the ideas of feeding, folding, governing, guiding,
guarding, and whatever a good shepherd is expected to do for his
flock. B ooicG) denotes the more special and tender care, the giving
of nourishment, and is appropriately used when speaking of lambs.
II oLfiaivu is more general and comprehensive, and means to rule as
well as to feed. Hence appear the depth and fulness of the three¬
fold commandment: “Feed my lambs,” “Tend my sheep,” “Feed
my choice sheep.” The lambs and the choice sheep need special
nourishment; all the sheep need the shepherd’s faithful care. It
is well to note, that, on the occasion of the first miraculous draught
of fishes, at this same sea of Galilee (Luke v, 1-10), Jesus sounded
the depths of Simon Peter’s soul (verse 8), awakened him to an aw¬
ful sense of sin, and then told him that he should thereafter catch
men (verse 10). How, after this second like miracle, at the same
sea, and with another probing of his heart, he indicates to him that
there is something more for him to do than to catch men. He must
know how to care for them after they have been caught. He must
be a shepherd of the Lord’s sheep as well as a fisher of men, and
he must learn to imitate the manifold care of the Great Shepherd
of Israel, of whom Isaiah wrote (Isa. xl, 11): “As a shepherd he
will feed his flock (Y7JJ) ; in his arms he will gather the lambs (D'N^tD),
and in his bosom bear; the milch-ewes (rtffy) he will gently lead.”
The synonymes of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures have been as
yet but slightly and imperfectly treated.1 They afford the biblical
scholar a broad and most interesting field of study. It is a spiritual
as well as an intellectual discipline to discriminate sharply between
synonymous terms of Holy Writ, and trace the diverging lines of
thought, and the far-reaching suggestions which often arise there¬
from. . The foregoing pages will have made it apparent that the
exact import and the discriminative usage of words are all-import¬
ant to the biblical interpreter. Without an accurate knowledge
of the meaning of his words, no one can properly either under¬
stand or explain the language of any author.
1 The only works of note on the subject are, Girdlestone, Synonymes of the Old
Testament, London, 1871 ; and Trench, Synonymes of the New Testament, originally
published in two small volumes, and subsequently in one ; Ninth Edition, London, 1880.
The work of Tittmann, De Synonym is in Novo Testamento, translated and published
in two volumes of the Edinburgh Biblical Cabinet, is now of no great value. Cre-
mer’s Biblico-Theological Lexicon of the New Testament contains a very excellent
treatment of a number of the New Testament synonymes ; and Wilson’s Syntax and
Synonymes of the Greek Testament (London, 1864) is well worthy of consultation.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
203
CHAPTER VI.
THE GRAMM ATICO- HISTORICAL SENSE.
Having become familiar with the meaning of words, and thoroughly
versed in the principles and methods by which their signification
and usage are ascertained, we are prepared to investigate the
grammatico-historical sense. This phrase is believed to have
originated with Karl A. G. Keil, whose treatise on Historical In¬
terpretation and Text-Book of New Testament Hermeneutics1 fur¬
nished an important contribution to the science of in¬
terpretation. We have already defined the grammati- historical
co-historical method of interpretation as distinguished sense deflned'
from the allegorical, mystical, naturalistic, mythical, and other
methods,2 which have more or less prevailed. The grammatico-
historical sense of a writer is such an interpretation of his lan¬
guage as is required by the laws of grammar and the facts of his¬
tory. Sometimes we speak of the literal sense, by which we mean
the most simple, direct, and ordinary meaning of phrases and sen¬
tences. By this term we usually denote a meaning opjiosed to the
figurative or metaphorical. The grammatical sense is essentially
the same as the literal, the one expression being derived from the
Greek, the other from the Latin. But in English usage the word
grammatical is applied rather to the arrangement and construction
of words and sentences. By the historical sense we designate,
rather, that meaning of an author’s words which is required by
historical considerations. It demands that we consider carefully
the time of the author, and the circumstances under which he wrote.
“ Grammatical and historical interpretation, when rightly under¬
stood,” says Davidson, “are synonymous. The special Davidson’s
laws of grammar, agreeably to which the sacred writers statement,
employed language, were the result of their peculiar circumstances;
and history alone throws us back into these circumstances. A new
language was not made for the authors of Scripture ; they con¬
formed to the current language of the country and time. Their
compositions would not have been otherwise intelligible. They
1 De historica librorum sacrorum interpretatione ejusque necessitate. Lps., 1788.
Lehrbuch der Hermeneutik des N. T. nach Grundsatzen der grammatisch-historischen
Interpretation. Lpz., 1810. A Latin translation, by Emmerling, appeared in 1811.
2 Compare above, pp. 173, 174.
204
PRINCIPLES OF
took up the usus loquendi as they found it, modifying it, as is quite
natural, by the relations internal and external amid which they
thought and wrote.” The same writer also observes: “ The gram-
matico-historical sense is made out by the application of grammat¬
ical and historical considerations. The great object to be ascer¬
tained is the usus loquendi , embracing the laws or principles of
universal grammar which form the basis of every language. These
are nothing but the logic of the mind, comprising the modes in
which ideas are formed, combined, and associated, agreeably to the
original susceptibilities of the intellectual constitution. They are
the physiology of the human mind as exemplified practically by
every individual. General grammar is wont to be occupied, how¬
ever, with the usage of the best writers; whereas The laws of lan¬
guage as observed by the writers of Scripture should be mainly
attended to by the sacred interpreter, even though the philosoph¬
ical grammarian may not admit them all to be correct. It is the
usus loquendi of the inspired authors which forms the subject of
the grammatical principles recognized and followed by the expos¬
itor. The grammar he adopts is deduced from the use of the lan¬
guage employed in the Bible. This may not be conformed to the
practice of the best writers; it may not be philosophically just; but
he must not, therefore, pronounce it erroneous. The modes of ex¬
pression used by each writer — the utterances of his mental associa¬
tions, constitute his usus loquendi. These form his grammatical
principles; and the interpreter takes them as his own in the busi¬
ness of exegesis. Hence, too, there arises a special as well as a
universal grammar. Now we attain to a knowledge of the peculiar
usus loquendi in the way of historical investigation. The religious,
moral, and psychological ideas, under whose influence a language
has been formed and moulded; all the objects with which the
writers were conversant, and the relations in which they were
placed, are traced out historically . The costume of the ideas in
the minds of the biblical authors originated from the character of
the times, country, place, and education, under which they acted.
Hence, in order to ascertain their peculiar usus loquendi , we should
know all those institutions and influences whereby it was formed or
affected.” 1
The general principles and methods by which we ascertain the
General princi- usus lo(lum^ °f single terms, or words, have been pre¬
pies and meth- sented in the preceding chapter. Substantially the
same principles are to serve us as we proceed to investi¬
gate the grammatico-historical sense. We must attend to the
1 Davidson, Sacred Hermeneutics, pp. 225, 226.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
205
definitions and construction which an author puts upon his own terms,
and never suppose that he intends to contradict himself or puzzle
his readers. The context and connection of thought are also to he
studied in order to apprehend the general subject, scope, and pur¬
pose of the writer. But especially is it necessary to ascertain the
correct grammatical construction of sentences. Subject and predi¬
cate and subordinate clauses must be closely analyzed, and the
whole document, book, or epistle, should be viewed, as far as pos¬
sible, from the author’s historical standpoint.
A fundamental principle in grammatico-historical exposition is
that words and sentences can have but one significa- words and sen-
tion in one and the same connection. The moment we meaSnginone
neglect this principle we drift out upon a sea of un- place,
certainty and conjecture. It is commonly assumed by the univer¬
sal sense of mankind that unless one designedly put forth a riddle,
he will so speak as to convey his meaning as clearly as possible to
others. Hence that meaning of a sentence which most readily sug¬
gests itself to a reader or hearer, is, in general, to be received as
the true meaning, and that alone. Take, for example, the account
of Daniel and his three companions, as given in the first chapter of
the Book of Daniel. The simplest child readily grasps the mean¬
ing. There can be no doubt as to the general import of the words
throughout the chapter, and that the writer intended to inform his
readers in a particular way how God honoured those young men
because of their abstemiousness, and because of their refusal to
defile themselves with the meats and drinks which the king had
appointed for them. The same may be said of the lives of the
patriarchs as recorded in the Book of Genesis, and, indeed, of any
of the historical narratives of the Bible. They are to be accepted
as a trustworthy record of facts.
This principle holds with equal force in the narratives of miracu¬
lous events. For the miracles of the Bible are re- Miracles t0 be
corded as facts, actual occurrences, witnessed by few or literany under¬
by many as the case might be, and the writers give no
intimation that their statements involve any thing but plain literal
truth. Thus, in Josh, v, 13-vi, 5, a man appears to Joshua, hold¬
ing a sword in his hand, announcing himself as “a prince of the
host of Jehovah” (verse 14), and giving directions for the capture
of Jericho. This may, possibly, have occurred in a dream or a
waking vision; but such a supposition is not in strictest accord with
the statements. For it would involve the supposition that Joshua
dreamed that he fell on his face, and took off his shoes from
his feet, as well as looked and listened. Revelations from Jehovah
206
PRINCIPLES OF
were wont to come through visions and dreams (Num. xii, 6), hut
the simplest exposition of this passage is that the angel of Jehovah
openly appeared to Joshua, and the occurrences were all outward
and actual, rather than by vision or dream.
The simple hut mournful narrative of the offering up of Jeph-
, thah’s daughter (Judg. xi, 30-40) has been perverted to
daughter a mean that Jephthah devoted his daughter to perpetual
burnt-offering. virginity_an exposition that arose from the a priori
assumption that a judge of Israel must have known that human
sacrifices were an abomination to Jehovah. But no one presumes
to question that he vowed to offer as a burnt-offering that which
came forth from the doors of his house to meet him (verse 31).
Jephthah could scarcely have, thought of a cow, or a sheep, or goat,
as coming out of his house to meet him. Still less could he have
contemplated a dog, or any unclean animal. The awful solemnity
and tremendous force of his vow appear, rather, in the thought
that he contemplated no common offering, but a victim to be taken
from among the inmates of his house. But he then little thought
that of all his household — servants, young men, and maidens— his
daughter and only child would be the first to meet him. Hence
his anguish, as indicated in verse 35. But she accepted her fate
with a sublime heroism. She asked two months of life in which
to bewail her virginity, for that was to her the one only thing that
darkened her thoughts of death. To die unwedded and childless
was the sting of death to a Hebrew woman, and especially one
who was as a princess in Israel. Take away that bitter thought, and
with Jeplithah’s daughter it wTere a sublime and enviable thing to
“ die for God, her country, and her sire.”
The notion that, previously to her being devoted to a life of vir¬
ginity and seclusion, she desired two months to mourn over such a
fate, appears exceedingly improbable, if not absurd. For, as Cap-
pellus well observes, “ If she desired or felt obliged to bewail her
virginity, it were especially suitable to bewail that when shut up in
the monastery; previously to her being shut up it would have been
more suitable, with youthful friends and associates, to have spent
those two months joyfully and pleasantly, since afterward there
would remain to her a time for weeping more than sufficiently
long.” 1 The sacred wwiter declares (verse 39) that, after the two
months, Jephthah did to his daughter the vow which he had vowed
— not something else which he had not vowed. He records, not as
the manner in which he did his vow, but as the most thrilling knell
that in the ears of her father and companions sounded over that
1 Critici Sacri, tom. ii, p. 2076.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
207
daughter’s funeral pile, and sent its lingering echo into the later
times, that “ she knew no man.” 1
The narratives of the resurrection of Jesus admit of no rational
explanation aside from that simple grammatico-histori-
cal sense in which the Christian Church has ever under- SonafS
stood them. The naturalistic and mythical theories, historlcal fa<*.
when applied to this miracle of miracles, utterly break down. The
alleged discrepancies between the several evangelists, instead of
disproving the truthfulness of their accounts, become, on closer in¬
spection, confirmatory evidences of the accuracy and trustworthi¬
ness of all their statements. If the New Testament narratives are
deserving of any credit at all, the following facts are evident:
(1) Jesus foretold his death and resurrection, but his disciples were
slow to comprehend him, and did not fully accept his statements.
(2) Immediately after the crucifixion the disciples were smitten with
deep dejection and fear; but after the third day they all claimed
to have seen the Lord, and they gave minute details of several of
his appearances. (3) They affirm that they saw him ascend into the
heavens, and soon afterward are found preaching “ Jesus and the
resurrection” in the streets of Jerusalem and in all Palestine and
the regions beyond. (4) Many years afterward Paul declared these
facts, and affirmed that Jesus appeared at one time to above five
hundred brethren, of whom the greater part were still alive (1 Cor.
xv, 6). He affirmed, that, if Christ had not been raised from the
dead, the preaching of the Gospel and the faith of the Church were
1 We gain nothing by attempting to evade the obvious import of any of the biblical
narratives. On the treatment of this account of Jephthah’s daughter Stanley ob¬
serves: “As far back as we can trace the sentiment of those who read the passage,
in Jonathan the Targumist, and Josephus, and through the whole of the first eleven
centuries of Christendom, the story was taken in its literal sense as describing the
death of the maiden, although the attention of the Church was, as usual, diverted to
distant allegorical meanings. Then, it is said, from a polemical bias of Kimchi, arose
the interpretation that she was not killed, but immured in celibacy. From the Jew¬
ish theology this spread to the Christian. By this time the notion had sprung up that
every act recorded in the Old Testament was to be defended according to the stand¬
ard of Christian morality ; and, accordingly, the process began of violently wresting
the words of Scripture to meet the preconceived fancies of later ages. In this way
entered the hypothesis of Jephthah’s daughter having been devoted as a nun; con¬
trary to the plain meaning of the text, contrary to the highest authorities of the
Church, contrary to all the usages of the old dispensation. In modern times a more
careful study of the Bible has brought us back to the original sense. And with it
returns the deep pathos of the original story, and the lesson which it reads of the
heroism of the father and daughter, to be admired and loved, in the midst of the
fierce superstitions across which it plays like a sunbeam on a stormy sea.” — Lectures
on the History of the Jewish Church. First Series, p. 397.
208
PRINCIPLES OF
but an empty thing, based upon a gigantic falsehood. This con¬
clusion follows irresistibly from the above-named facts. We must
either accept the statements of the evangelists, in their plain and
obvious import, or else meet the inevitable alternative that they
knowingly put forth a falsehood (a concerted testimony which was
essentially a lie before God), and went preaching it in all the world,
ready to seal their testimony by tortures and death. This latter
alternative involves too great a strain upon our reason to be accept¬
ed for a moment, especially when the unique and straightforward
Gospel narratives furnish such a clear and adequate historical basis
for the marvellous rise and power of Christianity in the world.
Winer’s Grammar of the New Testament, and the modern critical
commentaries on the whole or on parts of the New Testament —
such as those of Meyer, De Wette, Alford, Ellicott, and Godet —
have served largely to place the interpretation of the Christian
Grammatical Scriptures on a sound grammatico-liistorical basis, and
Jooked^for* in a constant use of these great works is all-important to
the scriptures, the biblical scholar. He must, by repeated grammatical
praxis, make himself familiar with the peculiarities of the New
Testament dialect. The significance of the presence or the absence
of the article has often much to do with the meaning of a passage.
“ In the language of living intercourse,” says Winer, “ it is utterly
impossible that the article should be omitted where it is decidedly
necessary, or employed where it is not demanded. ’'Opo^ can never
denote the mountain, nor to ogog a mountain .” 1 The position of
words and clauses, and peculiarities of grammatical structure, may
often serve to emphasize important thoughts and statements. The
special usage of the genitive, the dative, or the accusative case,
or of the active, middle, or passive voice, often conveys a notable
significance. The same is also true of conjunctions, adverbs, and
prepositions. These serve to indicate peculiar shades of meaning,
and delicate and suggestive relations of words and sentences, with¬
out a nice apprehension of which the real sense of a passage may
be lost to the reader. The authorized version often obscures an
important passage of the New Testament by a mistranslation of the
aorist tense. Take, as a single example, 2 Cor. v, 14: “For the
love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one
died for all, then were all dead.” The z/* is now allowed to be an
error in the text and should be omitted. The verse
GrGGk tenses
should then be translated: “For the love of Christ
constrains us, having judged this, that one died for all; therefore
the all died.” The first verb, constrains {ovve%cl), is in the present
1 New Testament Grammar, p. 115. Andover, 1874.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
209
tense, and denotes the then present experience of the apostle at
the time of his writing : The love of Christ (Christ’s love for men)
now constrains us (“holds us in bounds” — Meyer); and this is the
ever-present and abiding experience of all like the apostle. Having
judged (ftp ivavrag) is the aorist participle, and points to a definite
judgment which he had formed at some past time— probably at, or
soon after, his conversion. The statement that one died ( airedavev ,
aorist singular) for all, points to that great historic event which,
above every other, exhibited the love of Christ for men. "A pa ol
navreg anedavov, therefore the all died — “the all,” who meet the
condition specified in the next verse, and “live unto him who for
their sakes died and rose again,” are conceived as having died with
Christ. They were crucified with Christ, united with him by the
likeness of his death (Rom. vi, 5, 6).1 Compare also Col. iii, 3:
“For ye died (not ye are dead), and your life is hidden (i KenpvTrrai ,
has become hidden ) with Christ in God.” #That is, ye died at the
time ye became united with Christ by faith, and as a consequence
of that death ye now have a. spiritual life in Christ.
“With regard to the tenses of the verb,” says Winer, “New
Testament grammarians and expositors have been guilty of the
greatest mistakes. In general, the tenses are employed in the N ew
Testament exactly in the same manner as in Greek authors. The
aorist marks simply the past (merely occurrence at some former
time — viewed, too, as momentary), and is the tense employed in
narration; the imperfect and pluperfect always have reference to
secondary events connected in respect to time with the principal
event (as relative tenses) ; the perfect brings the past into con¬
nexion with the present, representing an action in reference to the
present as concluded. No one of these tenses, strictly and properly
taken, can stand for another, as commentators often would have us
believe. But where such an interchange appears to take place,
either it is merely apparent, and a sufficient reason (especially a
rhetorical one) can be discovered why this and no other tense has
been used, or it is to be set down to the account of a certain inac¬
curacy peculiar to the language of the people, which did not con¬
ceive "and express relations of time with entire precision.”2
1 When Christ died the redeeming death for all, all died, in respect of their fleshly
life, with him ; this objective matter of fact which Paul here affirms has its subjective
realization in the faith of the individuals, through which they have entered into that
death-fellowship with Christ given through his death for all, so that they have now,
by means of baptism, become buried with him (Col. ii, 12).— Meyer, in loco.
2 New Testament Grammar, p. 264. Comp. Buttmann’s Grammar of the New Test¬
ament Greek; Thayer’s Translation, pp. 194-206. Andover, 1873.
14
210
PRINCIPLES OF
The grammatical sense is to be always sought by a careful study
and application of the well-established principles and rules of the
language. A close attention to the meaning and relations of words,
a care to note the course of thought, and to allow each case, mood,
tense, and the position of each word, to contribute its part to the
general whole, and a caution lest we' assign to words and phrases a
scope and conception foreign to the usus loquendi of the language
— these are rules, which, if faithfully observed, will always serve
to bring out the real import of any written document.
CHAPTER VII.
CONTEXT, SCOPE, AND PLAN.
The grammatico-historical sense is further developed by a study of
context scope context an(l scope of an author’s work. The word
and Plan de- context , as the etymology intimates (Latin, con, together,
and textus, woven), denotes something that is woven to¬
gether, and, applied to a written document, it means the connexion
of thought supposed to run through every passage which consti¬
tutes by itself a whole. By some writers it is called the connexion.
The immediate context is that which immediately precedes or fol¬
lows a given word or sentence. The remote context is that which
is less closely connected, and may embrace a whole paragraph or
section. The scope, on the other hand, is the end or purpose which
the writer has in view. Every author is supposed to have some
object in writing, and that object will be either formally stated in
some part of his work, or else apparent from the general course of
thought. The plan of a work is the arrangement of its several
parts; the order of thought which the writer pursues.
The context, scope, and plan of a writing should, therefore, be
studied together; and, logically, perhaps, the scope should be first
ascertained. For the meaning of particular parts of a book may be
fully appiehended only when we have mastered the general purpose
and design of the whole. The plan of a book, moreover, is most
intimately related to its scope. The one cannot be fully appre¬
hended without some knowledge of the other. Even where the
scope is formally announced, an analysis of the plan will serve to
make it more clear. A writer who has a well-defined plan in
his mind will be likely to keep to that plan, and make all his nar¬
ratives and particular arguments bear upon the main subject.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
211
The scope of several of the books of Scripture is formally stated
by the writers. Most of the prophets of the Old Test- „
. 1 1 Scope of many
ament state the occasion and purpose of their oracles books formally
at the beginning of their books, and at the beginning of anuouaced-
particular sections. The purpose of the Book of Proverbs is an¬
nounced in verses 1-6 of the first chapter. The subject of Eccle¬
siastes is indicated at the beginning, in the words “Vanity of
vanities.” The design of John’s Gospel is formally stated at the
close of the twentieth chapter: “These things are written that ye
may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that be¬
lieving ye may have life in his name.” The special purpose and
occasion of the Epistle of Jude are given in verses 3 and 4: “Be¬
loved, while giving all diligence to write to you of our common
salvation, I found (or had) necessity to write to you exhorting to
contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered to the saints.
For there crept in stealthily certain men, who of old were fore-
written unto this judgment, ungodly, turning the grace of our God
into lasciviousness, and denying the only Master, and our Lord
Jesus Christ.” The purport of this is, that while Jude was dili¬
gently planning and preparing to write a treatise or epistle on the
common salvation, the circumstances stated in verse 4 led him to
break off from that purpose for the time, and write to exhort them
to contend earnestly for the faith once for all ( ana £, only once ;
“ no other faith will be given.” — Bengel) delivered to the saints.
The scope of some books must be ascertained by a diligent
examination of their contents. Thus, for example, the p]anandSeope
Book of Genesis is found to consist of ten sections, of Genesis seen
each beginning with the heading, “ These are the gen- m lts conteuts'
erations,” etc. This tenfold history of generations is preceded and
introduced by the record of creation in chapter i, 1-ii, 3. The
plan of the author appears, therefore, to be, first of all to record
the miraculous creation of the heavens and the land, and then the
developments (evolutions) in human history that followed that cre¬
ation. Accordingly, the first developments of human life and his¬
tory are called “the generations of the heavens and the land”
(chap, ii, 4). The historical standpoint of the writer is “ the day ”
from which the generations (ni"6ifl, growths) start, the day when
man was formed of the dust of the ground and the breath of life
from the heavens. So the first man is conceived as the product of
the land and the heavens by the word of God, and the word
create , does not occur in this whole section. “The day ” of chapter
ii, 4, which most interpreters understand of the whole creative
week, we take rather to be the terminus a quo of generations, the
212
PRINCIPLES OP
day from which, according to verse 5, all the Edenic growths be¬
gan; the day when the whole face of the ground was watered,
when the garden of Eden was planted, and the first human pair
were brought together. It was the sixth day of the creative week,
“the day that Jehovah God made in the sense of effected , did ,
accomplished , brought to completion) land and heavens.” Adam
was the “ son of God ” (Luke iii, 38), and the day of his creation
was the point of time when Jehovah Elohim first revealed himself
in history as one with the Creator. In chapter i, which records
the beginning of the heavens and the land, only Elohim is named,
the God in whom, as the plural form of the name denotes, centre
all fulness and manifoldness of divine powers. But at chapter
ii, 4, where the record of generations begins, we first meet with the
name Jehovah, the personal Revealer, who enters into covenant
with his creatures, and places man under moral law. Creation, so
to speak, began with the pluripotent God — Elohim; its completion
In the formation of man, and in subsequent developments, wa3
wrought by Jehovah, the God of revelation, of law, and of love.
Having traced the generations of the heavens and the land through
Adam down to Seth (iv, 25, 26), the writer next records the out¬
growths of that line in what he calls “the book of the generations
of Adam ” (v, 1). This book is no history of Adam’s origin, for
that was incorporated in the generations of the heavens and the
land, but of Adam’s posterity through Seth down to the time of
the flood. Next follow “the generations of Noah (vi, 9), then
those of his sons Shem, Ham, and Japheth (x, 1), then those of Shem
through Arphaxad to Terah (xi, 10-26), and then, in regular order,
the generations of Terah (xi, 27, under which the whole history
of Abraham is placed), Ishmael (xxv, 12), Isaac (xxv, 19), Esau
(xxxvi, 1), and Jacob (xxxvii, 2). Hence the great design of the
book was evidently to place on record the beginning and the
earliest developments of human life and history. Keeping in mind
this scope and structure of the book, we see its unity, " and also
find each section and subdivision, sustaining a logical fitness and
relation to. the whole. Thus, too, the import of not a few passages
becomes more clear and forcible.
A very cursory examination of the Book of Exodus shows us
Plan and scope that its great purpose is to record the history of the
Of Exodus. Exodus from Egypt and the legislation at Mt. Sinai,
and it is readily divisible into two parts (1) chaps, i-xviii ;
(2) xix-xl; corresponding to these two great events. But a closer
examination and analysis reveal many beautiful and suggestive re¬
lations of the different sections. First, we have a vivid narrative
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
213
01 the bondage of Israel (chaps, i-xi). It is sharply outlined in
chapter i, enhanced by the account of Moses’ early life and exile
(chaps, ii-iv), and shown in its intense persistence by the account
of Pharaoh’s hardness of heart, and the consequent plagues which
smote the land of Egypt (chaps, v-xi). Second, we" have the
redemption of Israel (chaps, xii-xv, 21). This is first typified by
the Passover (chaps, xii— xiii, 16), realized in the marvels and tri¬
umphs of the march out of Egypt, and the passage of the Red Sea
(xiii, 17-xiv, 31), and celebrated in the triumphal song of Moses
(xv> l-2l). Then, third, we have the consecration of Israel
(xv, 22-xl) set forth in seven sections, (l) The march from the
Red Sea to Rephidim (xv, 22-xvii, 7), depicting the first free activ¬
ities of the people after their redemption, and their need of special
Divine compassion and help. (2) Attitude of the heathen toward
Israel in the cases of hostile Amalek and friendly Jethro (xvii, 8-
xviii). (3) The giving of the Law at Sinai (xix-xxiv). (4) The
tabernacle planned (xxv— xxvii). (5) The Aaronic priesthood and
sundry sacred services ordained (xxviii-xxxi). (6) The backslid-
ings of the people punished, and renewal of the covenant and laws
(xxxii-xxxiv). (7) The tabernacle constructed, reared, and filled
with the glory of Jehovah (xxxv-xl).
These different sections of Exodus are not designated by special
headings, like those of Genesis, but are easily distinguished as so
many subsidary portions of one whole, to which each contributes
Jts share, and in the light of which each is seen to have peculiar
significance.
Many have taken in hand to set forth in order the course of
thought in the Epistle to the Romans. There can be subject and
no doubt, to those who have closely studied this epistle, ^pis5e°to
that, after his opening salutation and personal address, Romans,
the apostle announces his great theme in verse 16 of the first chap¬
ter. It is the Gospel considered as the pouter of God unto salvation
to every believer , to the Jew first , and also to the Greek. This is not
formally announced as the thesis, but it manifestly expresses, in a
happy personal way, the scope of the entire epistle. “ It had for
its end,” says Alford, “ the settlement, on the broad principles of
God’s truth and love, of the mutual relations and union in Christ
of God’s ancient people and the recently engrafted world. What
wonder, then, if it be found to contain an exposition of manV un¬
worthiness and God’s redeeming love, such as not even Holy Scrip¬
ture itself elsewhere furnishes?”1
In the development of his plan the apostle first spreads out before
1 Greek Testament ; Prolegomena to Romans.
214
PRINCIPLES OF
us an appalling portraiture of the heathen world, and adds, that
even the Jew, with all his advantage of God’s revelation, is under
the same condemnation; for by the law the whole world is involved
in sin, and exposed to the righteous judgment of God. This is the
first division (i, 18-iii, 20). The second, which extends to the close
of the eighth chapter, and ends with a magnificent expression of
Christian confidence and hope, discusses and illustrates the propo¬
sition stated at its beginning: “Now, apart from law, a righteous¬
ness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the law and
the prophets, even a righteousness of God through faith of Jesus
Christ unto all them that believe” (iii, 21). Under this head we
find unfolded the doctrine of justification by faith, and the pro¬
gressive glorification of the new man through sanctification of the
Spirit. Then follows the apostle’s vindication of the righteousness
of God in casting off the Jews and calling the Gentiles (chaps,
ix-xi), an argument that exhibits throughout a yearning for Is¬
rael’s salvation, and closes with an outburst of wondering emo¬
tion over the “ depth of riches and wisdom and knowledge of God,”
and a doxology (xi, 33-36). The concluding chapters (xii-xvi) con¬
sist of a practical application of the great lessons of the epistle in
exhortations, counsels, and precepts for the Church, and numerous
salutations and references to personal Christian friends.
It will be found that a proper attention to this general plan and
scope of the Epistle will greatly help to the understanding of its
smaller sections.
Having ascertained, the general scope and plan of a book of
Scripture, we are more fully prepared to trace the context and bear-
Context of par- of its particular parts. The context, as we have
ticuiar passages, observed, may be near or remote, according as we seek
its immediate or more distant connexion with the particular word
or passage in hand. It may run through a few verses or a whole
section. The last twenty-six chapters of Isaiah exhibit a marked
unity of thought and style, but they are capable of several subdivi¬
sions. The celebrated Messianic prophecy in chapters lii, 13-liii, 12,
is a complete whole in itself, but most unhappily torn asunder by
the division of chapters. But, though forming a clearly defined
section by themselves, these fifteen verses must not be severed from
their context, or treated as if they had no vital connexion with
what precedes and what follows after. Alexander justly condemns
“ the radical error of supposing that the book is susceptible of dis¬
tribution into detached and independent parts.” 1 It ‘has its divis¬
ions more or less clearly defined, but they cling to each other,
Hater Prophecies of Isaiah, p. 247. New York, 1847.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
215
and are interwoven with each other, and form a living whole. It
is beautifully observed by Nagelsbach, that “chapters xlix-lvii are
like a wreath of glorious flowers intertwined with black ribbon ; or
like a song of triumph, through whose muffled tone there courses
the melody of a dirge, yet so that gradually the mournful chords
merge into the melody of the song of triumph. And at the same
time the discourse of the prophet is arranged with so much art that
the mourning ribbon ties into a great bow exactly in the middle.
For chapter liii forms the middle of the entire prophetic cycle of
chapters xl-lxvi.” 1
The immediate connexion with what precedes may be thus seen :
In lii, 1-12, the future salvation of Israel is glowingly depicted as
a restoration more glorious than that from the bondage of Egypt
or from Assyrian exile. Jerusalem awakes and rises from the dust
of ruin; the captive is released from fetters; the feet of fleet mes¬
sengers speed with good tidings, and the watchmen take up the
glad report, and sound the cry of redemption. And then (verse 11)
an exhortation is sounded to depart from all pollution and bondage,
and the sublime exodus is contrasted (verse 12) with the hasty
flight from Egypt, but with the assurance that, as of old, Jehovah
would still be as the pillar of cloud and fire before them and behind
them. At this our passage begins, and the thought naturally turns
to the great Leader of this spiritual exodus — a greater than Moses,
even though that ancient servant of J ehovah was faithful in all his
house (Num. xii, 7). Our prophet proceeds to delineate Him whose
sufferings and sorrows for the transgressions of his people far tran¬
scended those of Moses, and whose final triumph through the fruit
of the travail of his soul shall be also infinitely greater.
The much-disputed passage in Matt, xi, 12 can be properly ex¬
plained only by special regard to the context. Literally Matt, xi, 12 ex-
translated, the verse reads: From the days ot John uscon-
the Baptist until now, the kingdom of the heavens text,
suffers violence fl3ta$srot), and violent ones are seizing upon it.”
There are seven different ways in which this passage has been
explained. # .
1. The violence here mentioned is explained by one class of in¬
terpreters as a hostile violence — the kingdom is violently persecuted
by its enemies, and violent persecutors seize on it as by stoim.
The words themselves would not unnaturally bear such a mean¬
ing, but we find nothing in the context to harmonize with a refer¬
ence to hostile forces, or violent persecution.
2. Fritzsche translates 1 Sidfrrcu by magna vi praedicatur (is
1 Commentary on Isaiah, lii, 13, in Lange’s Bible work.
216
PRINCIPLES OF
proclaimed with great power) ; but this is contrary to the meaning
of the word, and utterly without warrant.
3. The most common interpretation is that which takes fiia&Tcu
in a good sense, and explains it of the eager and anxious struggles
of many to enter into the new kingdom of God. This view, how¬
ever, is open to the twofold objection, that it does not allow the
word i Qia^erai its proper significance, and it has no relevancy to the
context. It could scarcely be said of the blind, the lame, the lepers,
the deaf, the dead, and the poor, mentioned in verse 5, that they
took the kingdom by violence, for whatever violence was exerted
in their case proceeded not from them but from Christ.
4. According to Lange “ the expression is metaphorical, denoting
the violent bursting forth of the kingdom of heaven, as the kernel
of the ancient theocracy, through the husk of the Old Testament.
J ohn and Christ are themselves the violent who take it by force —
the former, as commencing the assault; the latter, as completing
the conquest. Accordingly, this is a figurative description of the
great era which had then commenced.” 1 So far as this exposition
might describe an era which began with John, it would cer¬
tainly have relevancy to the immediate context; but no such era
of a violent bursting forth of the kingdom of heaven had as yet
opened. The kingdom of God was not yet come; it was only at
hand. Besides, the making of both John and Christ the violent
ones, in the sense of breaking open the husk of the Old Testament
to let the kingdom of the heavens out, is a far-fetched and most
improbable idea.
5. Others take (itd^erai in a middle sense: the kingdom of heaven
violently breaks in — forcibly introduces itself, or thrusts itself for¬
ward in spite of all opposition. This usage of the word may be
allowed ; but the interpretation it offers is open to the same objec¬
tion as that of Lange just given. It cannot be shown that there
was any such violent breaking in of the kingdom of God from the
days of John the Baptist to the time when Jesus spoke these words.
Besides, it is difficult, on this view, to explain satisfactorily the
(haorai, violent ones , mentioned immediately afterward.
6. Stier combines a good and a bad sense in the use of /3 lateral :
“The word has here no more and no less than its active sense,
which passes into the middle. The kingdom of heaven proclaims
itself loudly and openly , breaking in with violence; the poor are
compelled (Luke xiv, 23) to enter it ; those who oppose it are con¬
strained to take offence. In short, all things proceed urgently with
it; it goes with mighty movement and impulse; it works effectually
1 Commentary, in loco.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
217
upon all spirits on both sides and on all sides. ... Its constrain¬
ing power does violence to all; but it excites, at the same time, in
the case of many, obstinate opposition. He who will not submit to
it, must be offended and resist ; and he, too, who yields to it, must
press and struggle through this offence. Thijs the kingdom of
heaven does and suffers violence, both in its twofold influence.”1
Hence, according to Stier, the violent ones are either good or bad,
since both classes are compelled to take some part in the general
struggle, either for or against. This exposition, however, is with¬
out sufficient warrant in the history of the time, “from the days
of John the Baptist until now,” and it puts too many shades of
meaning on the word fitaorai. Besides, this view also has no clear
relevancy to the context.
7. We believe the true view will be attained only by giving each
word its natural meaning, and keeping attention strictly to the con¬
text. The common meaning of (ha^o is to talce something by force,
to carry by storm , as a besieged city or fortress ; and it here refers
most naturally to the violent and hasty efforts to seize upon the
kingdom of God which had been conspicuous since the beginning of
the ministry of John. For this view seems to be demanded by the
context. J ohn had heard, in his prison, about the works of Christ,
and, anxious and impatient for the glorious manifestation of the
Messiah, sent two of his disciples to put the dubious question, “ Art
thou he that is coming, or look we for another?” (Matt, xi, 2, 3).
Jesus’ answer (verses 4-6) was merely a statement of his mighty
works, and of the preaching of the Gospel to the poor — Old
Testament prophetic evidence that the days of the Messiah were
at hand — and the tacit rebuke : “ Blessed is he whosoever shall not
be offended (<wavdaXiodxi find occasion of stumbling) in me,” was
evidently meant for John’s impatience. When Jbhn’s disciples
went away Jesus at once proceeded to speak of John’s char¬
acter and standing before the multitudes: When ye all flocked
to the wilderness to hear John preach, did ye expect to find a
wavering reed, or a finely dressed courtier? Or did ye expect,
rather, to see a prophet? Yes, he exclaims, much more than a
prophet. For he was the Messiah’s messenger, himself prophe¬
sied of in the Scriptures (Mai. iii, 1). He was greater than all the
prophets who were before him; for he stood upon the very verge
of the Messianic era and introduced the Christ. But, with all his
greatness, he misunderstands the kingdom of heaven ; and from his
days until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence from many
who, like him, think it may be forced into manifestation. That king-
1 Words of the Lord Jesus, in loco.
218
PRINCIPLES OF
dom comes according to an ordered progress. First, the prophets
and the law until John — the Elijah foretold in Mai. iv, 5. John
was but the forerunner of Christ, preparing his way, and Christ’s
manifestation in the flesh was not his coming in his kingdom.
Herein, we think, expositors have generally misapprehended our
Lord’s doctrine. Thus Hast : “ The Lord speaks of the absolutely
certain and momentous fact that the kingdom of heaven has come,
proclaims its presence, and sends forth its invitations in tones not
to be misunderstood (verse 15).” 1 We believe, on the contrary, that
this is a grave misunderstanding of our Lord’s words. He neither
says, nor necessarily implies, that his kingdom has come. John’s
preaching and Christ’s preaching alike declared the kingdom to be
at hand, and not fully come. Compare Matt, iii, 2 and iv, 17. But
from the beginning of this gospel men had been over anxious to
have the kingdom itself appear, and in this sense it was suffering
violence, both by an inward impatience and zeal, such as John him¬
self had just now exhibited, and by an open and outward clamour,
such as was exhibited by those who would fain have taken Jesus
by force and made him king (John vi, 15). This same kind of vio¬
lence is to be understood in the parallel passage in Luke xvi, 16.
The preaching of “the Gospel of the kingdom” was the occasion of
a violence of attitude regarding it. Every man would fain enter
violently into it.
The word (3 idfrrcu, accordingly, denotes not altogether a hostile
violence, nor yet, on the other hand, a commendable zeal; but it
may combine in a measure both of these conceptions. Stier finely
says : “ In a case where exegesis perseveringly disputes which of
the two views of a passage caj)able of two senses is correct, it is
generally found that both are one in a third deeper meaning, and
that the disputants in both cases have both right and wrong in their
argument.” 2 The word in question may combine both the good and
the bad senses of violence : not, however, in the manner in which
Stier explains, as above, but as depicting the violent zeal of those
who would hurry the kingdom of God into a premature manifesta¬
tion. Such a zeal might be laudable in its general aim, but very
mistaken in its spirit and plan, and therefore deserving of rebuke.
The context of Gal. v, 4, must be studied in order to apprehend
Gal. V, 4, to be the force and scope of the words: “Ye are fallen away
immediate con*- ^rom grace.” The apostle is contrasting justification
text‘ by faith in Christ with justification by an observance
of the law, and he argues that these two are opposites, so that one
1 English Commentary on Matthew, in loco.
2 Words of the Lord Jesus, on Matt, xi, 12.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
219
necessarily excludes the other. He who receives circumcision as a
means of justification (verse 2) virtually excludes Christ, whose
gospel calls for no such work. If one seeks justification in a law
of works, he binds himself to keep the whole law (verse 3); for
then not circumcision only, but the whole law, must be minutely
observed. Then, with a marked emphasis and force of words, he
adds: “Ye were severed from Christ, whoever of you are being
(assuming to be) justified in law, ye fell away from grace.” Ye cut
yourselves off from the system of grace {jrj<; ^agirog). The word
grace , then, is here to be understood not as a gracious attainment
of personal experience, but as the gospel system of salvation. From
this system they apostatized who sought justification in law.
It will be obvious from the above that the connexion of thought
in any given passage may depend on a variety of con-
•3 j • XjL , J . The connexion
snierations. It may be a historical connexion, m that may be historic
facts or events recorded are connected in a chronolog- dojnnati^iogil
ical sequence. It may be historico-dogmatic , in that a cal, or psycho-
doctrinal discourse is connected with some historic fact losica1,
or circumstance. It may be a logical connexion, in that the thoughts
or arguments are presented in logical order; or it may be psycho¬
logical , because dependent on some association of ideas. This latter
often occasions a sudden breaking off from a line of thought, and
may serve to explain some of the parenthetical passages and in¬
stances of anacoluthon so frequent in the writings of Paul.
Too much stress cannot well be laid upon the importance of
closely studying the context, scope, and plan. Many a importance of
passage of Scripture will not be understood at all with- contextf scope!
out the help afforded by the context; for many a sen- and plan,
tence derives all its point and force from the connexion in which
it stands. So, again, a whole section may depend, for its proper
exposition, upon our understanding the scope and plan of the
writer’s argument. How futile would be a proof text drawn
from the Book of Job unless, along with the citation, it were ob¬
served whether it were an utterance of J ob himself, or of one of his
three friends, or of Elihu, or of the Almighty! Even Job’s celebrated
utterance in chapter xix, 25-27, should be viewed in reference to
the scope of the whole book, as well as to his intense anguish and
emotion at that particular stage of the controversy.1
1 Some religious teachers are fond of employing scriptural texts simply as mottoes,
with little or no regard to their true connexion. Thus they too often adapt them to
their use by imparting to them a factitious sense foreign to their proper scope and
meaning. The seeming gain in all such cases is more than counterbalanced by the
loss and danger that attend the practice. It encourages the habit of interpreting
220
PRINCIPLES OP
“ In considering the connexion of parts in a section,” says David-
Critical tact son> “and amount of meaning they express, acute-
and ability ness and critical tact are much needed. We may be
able to tell the significations of single terms, and yet be
utterly inadecpiate to unfold a continuous argument. A capacity
for verbal analysis does not impart the talent of expounding an
entire paragraph. Ability to discover the proper causes, the nat¬
ural sequence, the pertinency of expressions to the subject dis¬
cussed, and the delicate distinctions of thought which characterize
particular kinds of composition, is distinct from the habit of care¬
fully tracing out the various senses of separate terms. It is a
higher faculty; not the child of diligence, but rather of original,
intellectual ability. Attention may sharpen and improve, but can¬
not create it. All men are not endowed with equal acuteness, nor
fitted to detect the latent links of associated ideas by their outward
symbols. They cannot alike discern the idiosyncrasies of various
writers as exhibited in their composition. But the verbal philolo¬
gist is not necessarily incapacitated by converse with separate signs
of ideas from unfolding the mutual bearings of an entire paragraph.
Imbued with a philosophic spirit, he may successfully trace the
connexion subsisting between the various parts of a book, while he
notes the commencement of new topics, the propriety of their posi¬
tion, the interweaving of argumentation, interruptions and digres¬
sions, and all the characteristic peculiarities exhibited in a particular
composition. In this he may be mightily assisted by a just per¬
ception of those particles which have been designated ercea nrepo-
evra [winged words], not less than by sympathy with the spirit of
the author whom he seeks to understand. By placing himself as
much as possible in the circumstances of the writer, and contem¬
plating from the same elevation the important phenomena to
which his rapt mind was directed, he will be in a favourable po¬
sition for understanding the parts and proportions of a connected
discourse.” 1 •
Scripture in an arbitrary and fanciful way, and thus furnishes the teachers of error
with their most effective weapon. The practice cannot be defended on any plea of
necessity. The plain words of Scripture, legitimately interpreted according to their
proper scope and context, contain a fulness and comprehensiveness of meaning suffi¬
cient for the wants of all men in all circumstances. That piety alone is robust and
healthful which is fed, not by the fancies and speculations of the preacher who prac¬
tically puts his own genius above the word of God, but by the pure doctrines and pre¬
cepts of the Bible, unfolded in their true connexion and meaning. Barrows, Intro¬
duction to the Study of the Bible, p. 455.
1 Sacred Hermeneutics, p. 240.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
221
CHAPTER VIII.
COMPARISON OF PARALLEL PASSAGES.
There are portions of Scripture in the exposition of which we are
not to look for help in the context or scope. The Book some parts of
of Proverbs, for example, is composed of numerous omiogicaicon-
separate aphorisms, many of which have no necessary text,
connection with each other. The book itself is divisible into sev¬
eral collections of proverbs; and separate sections, like that con¬
cerning the e\il woman in chapter vii, and the words of wisdom in
chapters viii and ix, have a unity and completeness in themselves,
through which a connected train of thought is discernible. But
many of the proverbs are manifestly without connexion with what
precedes or follows. Thus the twentieth and twenty-first chapters
of Proverbs may be studied ever so closely, and no essential con¬
nexion of thought appears to hold any two of the verses together.
The same will be found true of other portions of this book, which
from its very nature is a collection of apothegms, each ope of which
may stand by itself as a concise expression of aphoristic wisdom.
Several parts of the Book of Ecclesiastes consist of proverbs, solilo¬
quies, and exhortations, which appear to have no vital relation to
each other. Such, especially, are to be found in chapters v-x.
Accordingly, while the scope and general subject-matter of the
entire book are easily discerned, -many eminent critics have de¬
spaired of finding in it any definite plan or logical arrangement.
The Gospels, also, contain some passages which it is impossible to
explain as having any essential connexion with either that which
precedes or follows.
On such isolated "texts, as also on those not so isolated, a compar¬
ison of parallel passages of Scripture often throws much value of parai-
light. For words, phrases, and historical or doctrinal lei passages,
statements, which in one place are difficult to understand, are often
set forth in clear light by the additional statements with which they
stand connected elsewhere. Thus, as shown above (pp. 215-218),
the comparatively isolated passage in Luke xvi, 16, is much more
clear and comprehensive when studied in the light of its context in
Matt, xi, 12. Without the help of parallel passages, some words and
statements of the Scripture would scarcely be intelligible. As we as¬
certain the usus loquendi of words from a wide collation of passages
222
PRINCIPLES OF
in which they occur, so the sense of an entire passage may be elu¬
cidated by a comj:>arison with its parallel in another place. “The
employment of parallel passages,” says Immer, “must go hand in
hand with attention to the connexion. The mere explanation ac¬
cording to the connexion often fails to secure the certainty that is
desired, at least in cases where the linguistic usage under consider¬
ation and the analogous thought cannot at the same time be other¬
wise established.” 1
“ In comparing parallels,” says Davidson, “ it is proper to observe
a certain order. In the first place we should seek for parallels in
the writings of the same author, as the same peculiarities of con¬
ception and modes of expression are liable to return in different
works proceeding from one person. There is a certain configura¬
tion of mind which manifests itself in the productions of one man.
Each writer is distinguished by a style more or less his own; by
characteristics which would serve to identify him with the emana¬
tions of his intellect, even were his name withheld. Hence the
reasonableness of expecting parallel passages in the writings of one
author to throw most light upon each other.” 2
But we should also remember that the Scriptures of the Old and
The Bible a seif- ^ew Testaments are a world by themselves. Although
j^terpreu^g written at sundry times, and devoted to many differ¬
ent themes, taken altogether they constitute a self¬
interpreting book. The old rule, therefore, that “ Scripture must
be interpreted 'by Scripture,” is a most important principle of sa¬
cred hermeneutics. But we must avoid the danger of overstepping
in this matter. Some have gone too far in trying to make Daniel
explain the Revelation of John, and it is equally possible to distort
a passage in Kings or in Chronicles by attempting to make it par¬
allel with some statement of Paul. In general we may expect to
find the most valuable parallels in books of the same class. Histor¬
ical passages will be likely to be paralleled with historical, prophetic
with prophetic, poetic with poetic, and argumentative and horta¬
tory with those of like character. Hosea and Amos will be likely
to have more in common than Genesis and Proverbs; Matthew and
Luke will be expected to be more alike than Matthew and one of
the Epistles of Paul, and Paul’s Epistles naturally exhibit many
parallels both of thought and language.
Nor should we overlook the fact that almost all we know of the
history of the Jewish people is embodied in the Bible. The apoc¬
ryphal books of the Old Testament and the works of Josephus are
the principal outside sources. These different books may, then, be
1 Hermeneutics of the New Testament, p. 159. 2 Hermeneutics, p. 251.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
223
fairly expected to interpret themselves. Their spirit and purpose,
their modes of thought and expression, their doctrinal teachings,
and, to some extent, their general subject-matter, would be natu¬
rally expected to have a self-conformity. When, upon examina¬
tion, we find that this is the case, we shall the more fully appre¬
ciate the importance of comparing all parallel portions and reading
them in each other’s light.
Parallel passages have been commonly divided into two classes,
verbal and real , according as that which constitutes the parallels verbal
parallel consists in words or in like subject-matter, and real.
Where the same word occurs in similar connexion, or in reference
to the same general subject, the parallel is called verbal. The use
of such parallel passages has been shown above in determining the
meaning of words.1 Real parallels are those similar passages in
which the likeness or identity consists, not in words or phrases, but
in facts, subjects, sentiments, or doctrines. Parallels of this kind
are sometimes subdivided into historic and didactic, according as
the subject-matter consists of historical events or matters of doc¬
trine. But all these divisions are, perhaps, needless refinements.
The careful expositor will consult all parallel passages, whether
they be verbal, historical, or doctrinal; but in actual interpretation
he will find little occasion to discriminate formally between these
different classes.
The great thing to determine, in every case, is whether the pas¬
sages adduced are really parallel. A verbal paVallel Parallels must
may be as real as one that embodies many correspond- have a real cor¬
ing sentiments, for a single word is often decisive of a
doctrine or a fact. On the other hand, there may be a likeness of
sentiment without any real parallelism. Proverbs xxii, 2, and
xxix, 13, are usually taken as parallels, but a close inspection will
show that though there is a marked similarity of sentiment, there
is no essential identity or real parallelism. Ihe first passage is*.
“Rich and poor meet together; maker of all of them is Jehovah.
We need not assume that this meeting together is in the grave (Co¬
nan t) or in the conflicts fiefeW) of life in a hostile sense. The sec¬
ond passage, properly rendered, is: “The poor and the man of
oppressions meet together; an enlightener of the eyes of both of
them is Jehovah.” Here the man of oppressions is not necessarily
a rich man; nor is enlightener of the eyes an equivalent of maker m
xxii, 2. Hence, all that can be properly said of these two passages
is, that they are similar in sentiment, but not strictly parallel or
identical in sense.
‘See above, pages 186, 187.
224
PRINCIPLES OF
A careful comparison of the parables of the talents (Matt, xxv,
14-30) and of the pounds (Luke xix, 11-27) will show that they
have much in common, together with not a few things that are dif¬
ferent. They were spoken at different times, in different places,
and to different hearers. The parable of the talents deals only
with the servants of the lord who went into a far country; that of
the pounds deals also with his citizens and enemies who would not
have him reign over them. Yet the great lesson of the necessity
of diligent activity for the Lord in his absence is the same in both
parables.
A comparison of parallel passages is necessary in order to deter-
The word hate mine the sense of the word hate in Luke xiv, 26 : “ If
parallel Cd pas- any one comes unto me, and hates not his father, and
sages. mother, and wife, and children, and brothers, and sis¬
ters, and even his own life besides, he cannot be my disciple.” This
statement appears at first to contravene the fifth commandment of
the decalogue, and also to involve other unreasonable demands. It
seems to stand opposed to the Gospel doctrine of love. But, turn¬
ing to Matt, x, 37, we find the statement in a milder form, and
woven in a context which serves to disclose its full force and bear¬
ing. There the statement is: “He that loveth father or mother
more than me is not worthy of me ; and he that loveth son or daugh¬
ter more than me is not worthy of me.” The immediate context
of this verse (verses 34-39), a characteristic passage of our Lord’s
more ardent utterances, sets its meaning in a clear light. “ Do not
Mutt, x, 34-89 ^ink,” he says, verse 34, “ that I came to send peace
on the earth ; I came not to send peace but a sword.”
He sees a world lying in wickedness, and exhibiting all forms of
opposition to his messages of truth. With such a world he can
make no compromise, and have no peace without, first, a bitter
conflict. Such conflict he, therefore, purposely invites. He will
conquer a peace, or else have none at all. “The telic style of ex¬
pression is not only rhetorical, indicating that the result is unavoid¬
able, but what Jesus expresses is a purpose — not the final design of
his coming, but an intermediate purpose — in seeing clearly pre¬
sented to his view the reciprocally hostile excitement as a necessary
transition, which he therefore, in keeping with his destiny as
Messiah, must be sent first of all to bring forth.”1 Before his
final purpose is accomplished he sees what bitter strifes must come;
but the grand result will be well worth all the intermediate woes.
Therefore he will call father, mother, child, although it cause many
household divisions; and so he adds, as explaining how he will send
1 Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, in loco.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
225
a sword rather than peace: “For I came to set a man at variance
against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the
daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s foes shall
be they of his own household.” When this state of things shall
come to pass, how many will be called upon to decide whether they
will cleave to Christ, or to an unchristian father? Micah’s Avords
(vii, 6) will then be true. Son will oppose father, daughter will
rise up against mother, and if one remains true to the Lord Christ,
he will have to forsake his own household and kin. He cannot be
a true disciple and love his parents or children more than Christ.
Hence he must needs set them aside, forsake them, love them less,
and e\ren oppose them, assuming toAvard them the hostile attitude
of an enemy for Christ’s sake. The import of hate , in Luke xiv, 26,
is accordingly made clear.
This peculiar meaning of the Avord is further confirmed by its use
in Matt, vi, 24: “No man can serve tAvo masters: for .
either he Avill hate the one, and love the other ; or else
he Avill hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God
and Mammon.” Tavo masters, so opposite in nature as God and
Mammon, cannot be loved and served at one and the same time. The
love of the one necessarily excludes the love of the other, and nei¬
ther Avill be served with a divided heart. In the case of such essen¬
tial opposites, a lack of love for one amounts to a disloyal enmity —
the root of all hatred. Another parallel, illustrative of this impres¬
sive teaching, is to be found in Heut. xiii, 6—11, Avhere it is enjoined
that, if brother, son, daughter, Avife, or friend entice one to idolatry,
he shall not only not consent, but he shall not have pity on the
seducer, and shall take measures to have him publicly punished as
an enemy of God and his people. Hence we derive the lesson that
one a\t1io opposes our love and loyalty to God or Christ is the worst
possible enemy. Compare also John xii, 25; Rom. ix, 13; Mai.
i, 2, 3 ; Deut. xxi, 15.
The true interpretation of Jesus’ words to Peter, in Matt, xvi, 18,
will be fully apprehended only by a comparison and careful study
of all the parallel texts. Jesus says to Peter, “Thou peter a living
art Peter (ps-pop), and upon this petra (or rock, errl stone. Matt. xvi,
ravrxi rrj Trerpa), will I build my Church, and the
gates of Hades shall not preArail against her.” IIoav is it possible
from this passage alone to decide whether the rock ( Trerpa ) refers
to Christ (as Augustine and Wordsworth), or to Peter’s confession
(Luther and many Protestant divines), or to Peter himself? It is
noticeable that in the parallel passages of Mark (Adii,2/-30) and
Luke (ix, 18-21) these Avords of Christ to Peter do not occur. 1 he
15
226
PRINCIPLES OF
immediate context presents us with Simon Peter, as the spokesman
and representative of the disciples, answering Jesus’ question with
the hold and confident confession, “ Thou art the Christ, the Son of
the living God.” Jesus was evidently moved by the fervid words
of Peter, and said to him, “ Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona, for
flesh and blood revealed it not to thee, but my Father who is in the
heavens.” Whatever knowledge and convictions of Jesus’ messiah-
ship and divinity the disciples had attained before, this noble com
fession of Peter possessed the newness and glory of a special revela¬
tion. It was not the offspring of “flesh and blood,” that is, not of
natural human birth or origin, but the spontaneous outburst of a
divine inspiration from heaven. Peter was for the moment caught
up by the Spirit of God, and, in the glowing fervour of such in¬
spiration, spoke the very word of the Father. He was accordingly
pronounced the blessed (ficutapiog) or happy one.
Turning now to the narrative of Simon’s introduction to the
John i, 41-43 Saviour (John i, 41-43), we compare the first mention
compared. Gf the name Peter. lie was led into the presence of
Jesus by his own brother Andrew, and Jesus, gazing on him, said,
“Thou art Simon, the son of Jonah; thou shalt be called Cephas,
which is interpreted Peter” (nerpog). Thus, at the beginning, he
tells him what he is and what he shall he. A doubtful character at
that time was Simon, the son of Jonah; irritable, impetuous, un¬
stable, irresolute; but Jesus saw a coming hour when he would be¬
come the bold, strong, abiding, memorable stone (Peter), the typ¬
ical and representative confessor of the Christ. Reverting again
to the passage in Matthew, it is easy to see that, through his in¬
spired confession of the Christ, the Son of the living God, Simon
has attained the ideal foreseen and foretold by his Lord. He has
now become Peter indeed ; now “ thou art Peter,” not “ shalt be
called Peter.” Accordingly, we cannot avoid the conviction that
the manifest play on the words petros and petra (in Matt, xvi, 18.)
has a designed and important significance, and also an allusion to
the first bestowal of the name on Simon (John i, 43) ; as if the Lord
had said : Remember, Simon, the significant name I gave thee at
our first meeting. Then I said, Thou shalt he called Peter ; now
I say unto thee, Thou art Peter.
But there is doubtless a designed significance in the change from
Petros and petros to petra , in Matt, xvi, 18. It is altogether prob-
petra. able that there was a corresponding change in the
Aramaic words used by our Lord on this occasion. He may, per¬
haps, have said: “Thou art Kepli (epa or na'3), and upon this
kepha (^f>’3) I will build my Church.” What, then, is meant by
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
227
the Trerpa, petra , on which Christ builds his Church? In answer¬
ing this question we inquire what other scriptures say about the
building of the Church, and in Eph. ii, 20-22 we find it written
that Christian believers constitute “the household of Ephesians ii
God, having been built upon the foundation of the 20-22 compared,
apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner¬
stone ; in whom all the building, fitly framed together, grows unto
a holy temple in the Lord ; in whom ye also are builded together
for a habitation of God in the Spirit.” Having made the natural
and easy transition from the figure of a household to that of the
structure in which the household dwells, the apostle speaks of the
latter as “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets.”
The prophets here intended are doubtless the New Testament
prophets referred to in chapters iii, 5 and iv, 11.
The foundation of the apostles and prophets has been explained
(1) as a genitive of apposition — the foundation which Foundation of
is constituted of apostles and prophets; that is, the the apostles
apostles and prophets are themselves the foundation and Pr°Phets-
(so Chrysostom, Olshausen, De Wette, and many others) ; (2) as a
genitive of the originating cause — the foundation laid by the
apostles (Calvin, Koppe, Harless, Meyer, Eadie, Ellicott) ; (3) as a
genitive of p>ossession — the apostles and prophets’ foundation, that
is, the foundation upon which they as well as all other believers are
builded (Beza, Bucer, Alford). We believe that in the breadth
and fulness of the apostle’s conception, there is room for all these
thoughts, and a wider comparison of Scripture corroborates this
view. In Gal. ii, 9, James, Cephas, and John are spoken of as
pillars (otvXol), foundation-pillars, or columnar supports of the
Church. In the apocalyptic vision of the New Jerusalem, which is
“the bride, the wife of the Lamb” (Rev. xxi, 9), it is said that
“ the wall of the city has twelve foundations, and upon
j Rev xxi 14.
them twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb”
(Rev. xxi, 14). Here it is evident that the apostles are conceived
as foundation-stones, forming the substructure of the Church; and
with this conception “ the foundation of the apostles and prophets ”
(Eph. ii, 20) may be taken as genitive of apposition. But in 1 Cor.
iii, 10, the apostle speaks of himself as a wise architect,
’ 1 . 1 „ n „ , T \ Cor. iii, 10.
laying a foundation (degeMov evrjrta, a joundation I
laid). Immediately after (verse 11) he says: “Other foundation
can no one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” This
foundation Paul himself laid when he founded the Church of Cor¬
inth, and first made known there the Lord Jesus Christ. Having
once laid this foundation, no man could lay another, although he
838
PRINCIPLES OF
might build thereupon, Paul himself could not have laid another
had some one else been first to lay this foundation in Corinth
(compare Rom. xv, 20). How he laid this foundation he tells in
chap, ii, 1-5, especially when he says (verse 2) “ I determined not
to know any thing among you except Jesus Christ, and him cruci¬
fied.” So then, in this sense, Ephesians ii, 20 may be taken as gen¬
itive of the originating cause — the foundation which the apostles
laid. At the same time we need not overlook or ignore the fact
presented in 1 Cor. iii, 11, that Jesus is himself the foundation, that
is, Jesus Christ — including his person, work, and doctrine — is the
great fact on which the Church is builded, and without which there
could be no redemption. Hence the Church itself, according to
I Tim. iii, 15, is the “pillar and basis (edpaLUfia) of the truth.”
Accordingly we hold that the expression “ foundation of the apostles
and prophets” (Eph. ii, 20) has a fulness of meaning which may in¬
clude all these thoughts. The apostles were themselves incorpor¬
ated in this foundation, and made pillars or foundation stones;
they, too, were instrumental in laying this foundation and building
upon it; and having laid it in Christ, and working solely through
Christ, without whom they could do nothing, Jesus Christ himself,
as preached by them, was also conceived as the underlying basis
and foundation of all (1 Cor. iii, 11).
Another Scripture, in 1 Peter ii, 4, 5, should also be collated
i Peter ii, 4, 5, here, for it was written by the apostle to whom the
compared. words of Matt, xvi, 18, were addressed, and seems to
have been with him a thought that lingered like a precious mem¬
ory in the soul: “To whom (i. e., the gracious Lord just mentioned)
approaching, a living stone, by men indeed disallowed, but before
Hod chosen, precious, do ye also yourselves, as living stones, be
built up a spiritual house.” Here the Lord is himself presented as
the elect and precious corner-stone (comp, verse 6), and at the same
time Christian believers are also represented as living stones, built
into the same spiritual temple.
Coming back now to the text in Matt, xvi, 18,* which Schaff pro¬
nounces “ one of the profoundest and most far-reaching prophetical,
but, at the same time, one of the most controverted, sayings of the
Saviour,” 1 we are furnished, by the above collation of cognate Scrip¬
tures, with the means of apprehending its true import and signifi¬
cance. Filled with a divine inspiration, Peter confessed his Lord
Christ, to the glory of God the Father (compare 1 John iv, 15, and
Rom. x, 9), and in that blessed attainment and confession he be-
1 Lange’s Commentary on Matthew, translated and annotated by Phillip Schaff,
p. 293. New York, 1864. Compare also Meyer, Alford, and Nast, in loco.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
came the representative or ideal Christian confessor. In view of
this, Jesus says to him: Now thou art Peter; thou art become a
living stone, the type and representative of the multitude of living
stones upon which I will build my Church. The change from the
masculine nergog to the feminine nerpa fittingly indicates that it is
not so much on Peter, the man, the single and separate individual,
as on Peter considered as the confessor, the type and representa¬
tive of all other Christian confessors, who are to be “builded to¬
gether for a habitation of God in the Spirit ” (Eph. ii, 22).
In the light of all these Scriptures we may see the impropriety
and irrelevancy of what has been the prevailing Prot- Error of the
estant interpretation, namely, making the nerpa, rock, g°t“^on
to be Peter’s confession. “ Every building,” says Hast, pretation of
“must have foundation stones. What is the founda- ni Tpa‘
tion of the Christian Church on the part of man? Is it not — what
Peter exhibited — a faith wrought in the heart by the Holy Ghost,
and a confession with the mouth that Jesus is the Christ, the Son
of the living God ? But this believing with the heart and confess¬
ing with the mouth is something personal; it cannot be separated
from the living personality that believes and confesses. The
Church consists of living men, and its foundation cannot be a mere
abstract truth or doctrine apart from the living personality in
which it is embodied. This is in accordance with the whole New
Testament language, in which not doctrines or confessions, but
men, are uniformly called pillars or foundations of the spiritual
building.” 1
It is well known how large a portion of the three synoptic Gos¬
pels consists of parallel narratives of the words and works of
1 Commentary on the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, in loco. To the Roman Cath¬
olic interpretation, which explains these Avords as investing Peter and his successors
with a permanent primacy at Rome, Schaif opposes the following insuperable objec¬
tions : (1) It obliterates the distinction between petros and petra ; (2) it is inconsistent
with the true nature of the architectural figure : the foundation of a building is one
and abiding, and not* constantly reneAved and changed ; (3) it confounds priority of
time with permanent superiority of rank ; (4 ) it confounds the apostolate, Avhich, strict¬
ly speaking, is not transferable, but confined to the original personal disciples of
Christ and inspired organs of the Holy Spirit, Avith the post-apostolic episcopate ; (5) it
involves an injustice to the other apostles, who, as a body, are expressly called the
foundation or foundation-stones of the Church ; (6) it contradicts the Avhole spirit of
Peter’s epistles, which i3 strongly antihierarchical, and disclaims any superiority over
his ‘fellow-presbyters;’ (7) finally, it rests on gratuitous assumptions which can
never be proven either cxegetically or historically, viz., the transferability of Peter’s
primacy, and its actual transfer upon the bishop, not of Jerusalem, nor of Antioch
(Avhere Peter certainly Avas), but of Rome exclusively.” See Lange’s Matthew, in
loco, page 297.
280
PRINCIPLES OF
Jesus. St. Paul’s account of the appearances of Jesus after the
resurrection (xv, 4-7), and of the institution of the
cl ^scripture Lord’s Supper (xi, 23-26), are well worthy of comparison
parallel. with the several Gospel narratives.1 The Lpistles of Paul
to the Romans and to the Galatians, being each so largely devoted
to the doctrine of righteousness through faith, should be studied
together, for they have many parallels which help to illustrate each
other. Not a few parallel passages of the Lphesian and Golossian
Epistles throw light upon each other, dhe second and third chap¬
ters of 2 Peter should be studied and expounded in connexion
with the Epistle of Jude. The genealogies of Genesis, Chronicles,
and Matthew and Luke, should be compared, as also large sections
of the books of Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah.
We have in the Acts of the Apostles three separate accounts of
Paul’s conversion (chaps, ix, xxii, and xxvi), and all these illustrate
and supplement each other. The many passages of the Old I esta-
ment which are quoted or referred to in the New, are also parallels;
but they are so specific in their nature as to call for sjiecial treat¬
ment in a future chapter.
1 More than common discretion must be exercised by the interpreter of the New
Testament with regard to the parallel passages in the Gospels, particularly in the
synoptical Gospels. With respect to the latter chiefly, they often relate the same
thing, sometimes they communicate the same conversation or saying of Jesus, but not
in the same words. We have here, then, different accounts of the same occurrence
or thing. But now the interpreter has no right to conclude from one evangelist to
another without any limitation, and e. g. to explain and supplement the words of the
Saviour, as recorded by one narrator, out of the account of another. For, in any
difference in the accounts, the question is, what Jesus actually said. We must com¬
mence there, by making a distinction between what was actually said and what is
communicated concerning it ; and with this last the interpreter has to deal. For in¬
stance, according to Matt, vi, 11, Jesus taught them to pray in the “Lord’s Prayer:”
Give us “ this day ” our daily bread ; according to Luke xi, 3 : Give us “ day by day,”
etc. Now we have no right to say : therefore, this day = day by day. In the same
prayer Matthew has it: “as we forgive,” etc. (thus, standard); Luke: “for we also
forgive,” etc. (thus, reason for hearing the prayer). Now we may not say that the
one is equal to the other. In like manner, also, we may not explain 1 Cor. xiv and
Acts ii, 4-13 out of each other, and so confound them with each other. In the latter
passage there is indeed mention of other (strange) languages (ertpcii y/Mcoai), in the
former, on the contrary, not a word is raid of “ other ” languages, but of tengues
(yAtiaaat) ; and in Acts ii the context of the narrative compels us quite as much
to think of strange languages, as the context in 1 Cor. xiv decidedly forbids it. —
Doedcs, Manual of Hermeneutics, pp.,100, 101.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
231
CHAPTER IX.
THE HISTORICAL STANDPOINT.
It is of the first importance, in interpreting a written document, to
ascertain who the author was, and to determine the
. -.I* . . Importance of
time, the place, and the circumstances of his writing, the historical
The interpreter should, therefore, endeavour to take standP°int-
himself from the present, and to transport himself into the his¬
torical position of his author, look through his eyes, note his sur¬
roundings, feel with his heart, and catch his emotion. Herein we
note the import of the term grammatico -historical interpretation.
We are not only to grasp the grammatical import of words and
sentences, but also to feel the force and bearing of the historical
circumstances which may in any way have affected the writer.
Hence, too, it will be seen how intimately connected may be the
object or design of a writing and the occasion which prompted its
composition. The individuality of the writer, his local surround¬
ings, his wants and desires, his relation to those for whom he
wrote, his nationality and theirs, the character of the times when
he wrote — all these matters are of the first importance to a thor¬
ough interpretation of the several books of Scripture.
A knowledge of geography, history, chronology, and antiquities,
has already been mentioned as an essential qualification ExTensive hl9_
of the biblical interpreter.1 Especially should he have toricai knowi-
a clear conception of the order of events connected ed^cnecessary*
with the whole course of sacred history, such as the contempora¬
neous history, so far as it may be known, of the great nations and
tribes of patriarchal times; the great world-powers of Egypt, As¬
syria, Babylon, and Persia, with which the Israelites at various
times came in contact ; the Macedonian Empire, with its later
Ptolemaic and Seleucidaic branches, from which the Jewish people
suffered many woes, and the subsequent conquest and dominion of
the Romans. The exegete should be able to take his standpoint
anywhere along this line of history* wherever he may find the age
of his author, and thence vividly grasp the outlying circumstances.
He should seek a familiarity with the customs, life, spirit, ideas,
and jmrsuits of these different times and different tribes and
1 See above, pp. 104, 156.
232
PRINCIPLES OF
nations, so as to distinguish readily what belonged to one and what
to another. By such knowledge he will be able not only to transport
himself into any given age, but also to avoid confounding the ideas
of one age or race with those of another.
It is not an easy task for one to disengage himself from the liv-
To transfer one- ing present, and thus transport himself into a past age.
to^ttoTremote As we advance in general knowledge, and attain a
past not easy, higher civilization, we unconsciously grow out of old
habits and ideas. We lose the spirit of the olden times, and be¬
come filled with the broader generalization and more scientific pro¬
cedures of modern thought. The immensity of the universe, the
vast accumulations of human study and research, the influence of
great civil and ecclesiastical institutions, and the power of tradi¬
tional sentiment and opinions, govern and shape our modes of
thought to an extent we hardly know. To tear oneself away from
these, and go back in spirit to the age of Moses, or David, or
Isaiah, or Ezra, or of Matthew and Paul, and assume the historic
standpoint of any of those writers, so as to see and feel as they
did — this surely is no easy task. Yet, if we truly catch the spirit
and feel the living force of the ancient oracles of God, we need to
apprehend them somewhat as they first thrilled the hearts of those
for whom they were immediately given.
Not a few devout readers of the Bible are so impressed with ex-
Undue exaita- alted ideas of the glory and sanctity of the ancient
*2t°s To^be worthies) that they are liable to take the record of their
avoided. lives in an unnatural light. To some it is difficult to
believe that Moses and Paul were not acquainted with the events
of modern times. The wisdom of Solomon, they imagine, must
have comprehended all that man can know. Isaiah and Daniel
must have discerned all future events as clearly as if they had
already occurred. The writers of the New Testament must have
known what a history and an influence their lifework would possess
in after ages. To such minds the names of Abraham, Jacob,
Joshua, Jephthah, and Samson, are so associated with holy
thoughts and supernatural revelations that they half forget that
they were men of like passions with ourselves. Such an undue
exaltation of the sanctity of the biblical saints will be likely to
interfere with a true historical exposition. The divine call and
inspiration of prophets and apostles did not nullify or set aside
their natural human powers, and the biblical interpreter should not
allow his vision to be so dazzled by the glory of their divine mis¬
sion as to make him blind to facts of their history. Abraham’s
cunning and deceit, conspicuous also in Isaac and Jacob, Moses’
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS. 233
hasty passions, and the barbarous brutality of most of the judges
and kings of Israel, are not to be explained away. They are facts
which the interpreter must fully recognize; and the more fully and
vividly all such facts are realized and set in their true light and
beaiing, the more accurately shall we apprehend the real import of
the Scriptures.
In the exposition of the Psalms, one of the first things to inquire
after is the personal standpoint of the author. “ The
historical occasions of the Psalms,” says Hibbard, “have SnTof the
ever been regarded, by judicious commentators, as im- Psalms-
portant aids to their interpretation, and the full exhibition of their
beauty and power. In the explanation of a work on exact science,
or of a metaphysical essay, no importance is attached to the exter¬
nal circumstances and place of the author at the time of writing.
In such a case the work has no relation to passing events, but to
the abstract and essential relations of things. Very different is the
language of poetry, and indeed of almost all such books as the sa¬
cred Scriptures are, which were at first addressed to a particular
people, or to particular individuals, for their moral benefit, and
much of them occupied with the personal experiences of their
authors. Here occasion, contact with outward things, the influence
of external circumstances and of passing events, play a conspicu¬
ous part hi giving mould and fashion to the thoughts and feelings
of the writer, scope and design to his subject, and meaning and
pertinency to his words. It may be said of the Hebrew poets, as
of those of all other nations, that the interpretation of their poetry
is less dependent on verbal criticism than on sympathy with the
feelings of the author, knowledge of his circumstances, and atten¬
tion to the scope and drift of his utterances. You must place
yourself in his condition, adopt his sentiments, and be floated on¬
ward with the current of his feelings, soothed by his consolations,
or agitated by the storm of his emotions.”1
Of many of the Psalms it is impossible now to determine the
historical standpoint; but not a few of them are so clear in their
allusions as to leave no reasonable doubt as to the occasion on
which they were composed. There is, for example, no good rea¬
son for doubting the genuineness of the inscription to the third
psalm, which refers the composition to David when he fled from
the face of his son Absalom. “From verse 5 we gather,” says
Perowne, “that the psalm is a morning hymn. With returning
day there comes back on the monarch’s heart the recollection of
1 The Psalms, Chronologically Arranged, with Historical Introductions, General In¬
troduction, page 12. New York, 1856.
234
PRINCIPLES OF
the enemies who threaten him — a nation up in arms against him,
his own son heading the rebellion, his wisest and most trusted
counsellor in the ranks of his foes (2 Sam. xv-xvii). Never, not
even when hounded by Saul, had he found his position one of
greater danger. The odds were overwhelmingly against him.
This is a fact which he does not attempt to hide from himself:
‘ How many are mine enemies; ’ ‘ many rise up against me;’ ‘ many
say to my soul ; ’ ‘ ten thousands of the people have set themselves
against me ’ (verses 1, 2, 6). Meanwhile, where are his friends, his
army, his counsellors? Not a word of allusion to any of them in
the psalm. Yet he is not crushed; he is not desponding. Ene¬
mies may be thick as the leaves of the forest, and earthly friends
may be few, or uncertain, or far off. But there is one Friend who
cannot fail him, and to him David turns with a confidence and
affection which lift him above all his fears. Never had he been
more sensible of the reality and preciousness of the divine protec¬
tion. If he was surrounded by his enemies, Jehovah was his shield.
If Shimei and his crew turned his glory into shame, Jehovah was
his glory. If they sought to revile and degrade him, Jehovah was
the lifter-up of his head. Nor did the mere fact of distance from
Jerusalem separate between him and his God. He had sent back
the ark and the priests, for he would not endanger their safety, and
he did not trust in them as a charm, and he knew that Jehovah
could still hear him from ‘his holy mountain’ (verse 4), could still
lift up the light of his countenance upon him, and put gladness in
his heart (Psa. iv, 6, '7). Sustained by Jehovah, he had laid him
down and slept in safety; trusting in the same mighty protection
he would lie down again to rest. Enemies might taunt him,
(verse 2), and friends might fail him, but the victory was Jeho¬
vah’s, and he could break the teeth of the ungodly” (vii, 8).1
The historical standpoint of a writer is so often intimately con-
Consider the nected with his situation at the date of writing, that
the time of the ^oth time and the place of the composition should
composition. be considered together. The locality of the incidents
recorded should also be closely studied and pictured before the
mind. It adds much to one’s knowledge and appreciation of bib¬
lical history to visit the lands trodden by patriarchs, prophets, and
apostles. Seeing Palestine is, indeed, a fifth gospel. A personal
visit to Beer-sheba, Hebron, Jerusalem, Joppa, Nazareth, and the
Sea of Galilee, affords a realistic sense of sacred narratives con¬
nected with these places such as cannot otherwise be had. The
1 The Book of Psalms, New Translation, with Introductions and Notes. Introduction
to Psalm iii. Andover, 1876.
BIBLICAL HERMEXEUTICS. 235
decalogue and the laws of Moses become more awful and impres¬
sive when read upon Mount Sinai, and the Lord’s ngonv in the
garden thrills the soul with deeper emotion when meditated in the
Kedron valley, beneath the old trees at the foot of the Mount of
Olives.
What a vividness and reality appear in the Epistles of Paul when
we study them in connexion with the account of his
apostolic journeys and labours, and the physical and e°p i sm s^f
political features of the countries through which he Paul‘
passed! Setting out from Antioch on his second missionary tour,
accompanied by Silas, he passed through Syria and Cilicia, visiting,
doubtless, his early home at Tarsus (Acts xv, 40, 41). Thence he
passed over the vast mountain-barrier on the north of Cilicia, and,
after visiting Derbe and Lystra, where he attached Timothy to him
as a companion in travel, he went through the region of Phrygia
and Galatia, where, notwithstanding his physical infirmity, he was
received as an angel of God (Gal. iv, 13), Passing westward, and
having been forbidden to preach in the western parts of Asia Minor
(Acts xv i, 6), he came with his companions to Troas. “ The district
of Troas,” observes Howson, “ extending from Mt. Ida to the plain,
watered by the Simois and the Scamander, was the scene of the
Trojan War; and it was due to the poetry of Homer that the an¬
cient name of Priam’s kingdom should be retained. This shore had
been visited on many memorable occasions by the great men of this
world. Xerxes passed this way when he undertook to conquer
Greece. Julius Caesar was here after the battle of Pharsalia. But,
above all, we associate this spot with a European conqueror of
Asia, and an Asiatic conqueror of Europe, with Alexander of
Macedon and Paul of Tarsus. For here it was that the enthusiasm
of Alexander was kindled at the tomb of Achilles by the memory
of his heroic ancestors; here he girded on his armour, and from
this goal he started to overthrow the august dynasties of the East.
And now the great apostle rests in his triumphal progress upon the
same poetic shore; here he is armed by heavenly visitants with the
weapons of a warfare that is not carnal, and hence he is sent forth
to subdue all the powers of the West, and bring the civilization of
the world into captivity to the obedience of Christ.” 1
After the vision and the Macedonian call received at this place,
he sailed from Troas and came to Neapolis, and thence to Philippi,
the scene of many memorable events (Acts xvi, 12-4Q), and thence
on through Amphipolis, Apollonia, Thessalonica, and Berea, to
1 Conybeare and Howson, Life and Epistles of St. Paul, vol. i, page 280. Fourth
American Edition. New York, 1855.
236
PRINCIPLES OP
Athens. There Paul waited, alone (comp. 1 Thess. iii, l), for his
companions, hut failed not meanwhile to preach the Gospel to the
inquisitive Athenians, “ standing in the midst of the Areopagus ”
(Acts xvii, 22). After this he passed on to Corinth, and founded
there the Church to which he subsequently addressed two of his
most important epistles. From Corinth, soon after his arrival, he
sent his first epistle to the Thessalonians. From this standpoint
how lifelike and real are all the personal allusions and reminiscences
of this his first epistle ! But that letter, in its vivid allusions to the
near coming of the Lord, awakened great excitement among the
Thessalonians, and only a few months afterward we find him writ¬
ing his second epistle to them to allay this trouble of their minds,
and to assure them that that day is not so near but that several
important events must first come to pass (2 Thess. ii, 1-8). A
grouping of all these facts and suggestions adds vastly to one’s
interest in the study of Paul’s epistles.
Without pursuing further the course of the apostles life and
labours, enough has been said to show what light and interest a
knowledge of the time and place of writing gives to the Epistles of
Paul. The situation and condition of the churches and persons ad¬
dressed in his epistles should also be carefully sought out. His
subsequent epistles, especially those to the Corinthians, and those of
his imprisonment, would be shorn of half their interest and value
but for the knowledge we elsewhere obtain of the persons, inci¬
dents, and places to which references are made. What a tender
charm hangs about the Epistle to the Philippians from our knowl¬
edge of the apostle’s first experiences in that Roman colony, his
subsequent visits there, and the thought that he is writing from his
imprisonment in Rome, and making frequent mention of his bonds
(Phil, i, 7, 13, 14), and of their former kindnesses toward him (iv,
15-18).1
Thorough inquiries into the narratives of Scripture have evinced
Such inquiries t^ie mmute accuracy of the sacred writers, and silenced
silence inadei many cavils of infidelity. The treatise of James Smith
on the Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul 2 furnishes an
unanswerable argument for the authenticity of the Acts of the
Apostles. The author’s practical experience as a sailor, his resi¬
dence at Malta, his familiar intercourse with the seamen of the
Levant, and his study of the ships of the ancients, qualified him
J Stanley’s History of the Jewish Church, Farrar’s and Geikie’s works on the Life of
Christ, and Farrar’s, Conybeare and Howson’s, and Lewin’s Life and Epistles of St.
Paul, are especially rich in illustrations of the subject of this chapter.
2 Third Edition. London, 1866.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
237
pre-eminently to expound the last two chapters of the Acts. His
volume is a monument of painstaking research, and throws more
light upon the narrative of Paul’s voyage from Caesarea to Rome
than all that had been written previously on that subject.1
The great importance of ascertaining the historical standpoint
of an author is notably illustrated by the controversy
over the date of the Apocalypse of John. If that pro- Sndrofnf“
phetical book was written before the destruction of the AP°calyPse*
Jerusalem, a number of its particular allusions must most naturally
be understood as referring to that city and its fall. If, however, it
was written at the end of the reign of Domitian (about A. D. 96),
as many have believed, another system of interpretation is neces¬
sary to explain the historical allusions.
Taking, first, the external evidence touching the date of the
Apocalypse, it seems to us that no impartial mind can fail to see
that it preponderates in favor of the later date. But when we
scrutinize the character and extent of this evidence, it seems equally
clear that no very great stress can safely be laid upon it. For it
all turns upon the single testimony of Irenaeus, who
, -i » . , , , ’ External testi-
wrote, according to the best authorities, about one hun- mony hangs on
dred years after the death of John, and who says that Iren£BUS-
in boyhood he had seen and conversed with Polvcarp, and heard
him speak of his familiar intercourse with John.2 3 This fact would,
of course, make his testimony of peculiar value, but, at the same
time, it should be borne in mind that at an early age he removed to
1 The following passage from Lewin is a noteworthy illustration of the value of
personal research in refuting captious objections to the historical accuracy of the Bi¬
ble. “ It is objected to the account of the viper fastening upon Paul’s hand,” says
Lewin, “ that there is no wood in Malta, except at Bosquetta, and that there are
no vipers in Malta. How, then, it is said, could the apostle have collected the sticks,
and how could a viper have fastened upon his hand ? But when I visited the Bay of
St. Paul, in 1851, by sea, I observed ti’ees growing in the vicinity, and there were also
fig-trees growing among the rocks at the water’s edge where the vessel was wrecked.
But there is a better explanation still. When I was at Malta in 1853, I went with
two companions to the Bay of St. Paul by land, and this Avas at the same season of
the year as Avhen the wreck occurred. We now noticed on the shore, just opposite
the scene of the Avreclt, eight or nine stacks of small faggots, and in the nearest stack
I counted tiventy-five bundles. They consisted of a kind of thorny heather, and had
evidently been cut for fireAvood. As Ave strolled about, my companions, Avhom I had
quitted to make an observation, put up a viper, or a reptile having the appearance of
one, Avhich escaped into the bundle of sticks. It may not have been poisonous, but
was like an adder, and Avas quite different from the common snake ; one of my fel-
loAv-travellers Avas quite familiar Avith the difference betAveen snakes and adders, and
could not Avell be mistaken.” — The Life and Epistles of St. Paul, vol. ii, page 208.
3 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book v, chap. xx.
238
PRINCIPLES OF
the remote West, and became bishop of Lyons, in France, far from
the associations of his early life. It would, therefore, have been no
strange thing if he had somewhat confounded names and dates.
His testimony is as follows: “We therefore do not run the risk of
pronouncing positively concerning the name of the Antichrist [hid¬
den in the number 666, Rev. xiii, 18], for if it were necessary to
have his name distinctly announced at the present time, it would
doubtless have been announced by him who saw the Apocalypse;
for it is not a great while ago that it [or he] was seen (ovds yap npd
tcoXXov xgovov ewpdd??), but almost in our own generation, toward
the end of Domitian’s reign.” 1 Here it should be noted that the
subject of the verb kcjpa&r), was seen, is ambiguous, and may be
either it, referring to the Apocalypse, or he, referring to J ohn him¬
self. But allowing it to refer to the Apocalypse, we have then this
testimony to the later date.
But what external testimony have we besides? Only Eusebius,
who lived and wrote a hundred years after Irenseus, and who ex¬
pressly quotes Irenaeus as his authority.2 He also quotes Clement
of Alexandria as saying that “after the tyrant was dead” John
returned from the isle of Patmos to Ephesus.3 But it nowhere
appears that Clement indicated who the tyrant was, or that he be¬
lieved him to have been Domitian. It is Eusebius who puts that
meaning in his words, and it is matter of notoriety that Eusebius
himself, after quoting various opinions, leaves the question of the
authorship of the Apocalypse in doubt.4 Origen’s testimony is also
adduced, but he merely says that John was condemned by “the
king of the Romans,” not intimating at all who that king was, but
calling attention to the fact that John himself did not name his
persecutor. All other testimonies on the subject are later than
these, and consequently of little or no value. If Eusebius was de¬
pendent on Irenaeus for his information, it is not likely that later
writers drew from any other source. But that the voice of antiq¬
uity was not altogether uniform on this subject may be inferred
from the fact that an ancient fragment of a Latin document, prob¬
ably as old as Irenaeus’ writings, mentions Paul as following the
order of his. predecessor John in writing to seven churches. The
value of this ancient fragment is its evidence of a current notion
that John’s Apocalypse was written before the decease of Paul.
Epiphanius dates John’s banishment in the reign of Claudius Caesar,
and the superscription to the Syriac version of the Apocalypse
1 Adversus Haereses, v, 30.
2 See Eccles. History, book iii, 18 and v, 8. 3 Ibid., book iii, 23.
4 See especially Alford’s Prolegomena to the Revelation.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
239
places it in the reign of Nero.1 No one would lay great stress upon
any of these later statements, but putting them all together, and
letting the naked facts stand apart, shorn of all the artful colour¬
ings of partisan writers, we find the external evidence of John’s
writing the Apocalypse at the close of Domitian’s reign resting on
the sole testimony of Irenseus, who wrote a hundred years after
that date, and whose words admit of two different meanings.
One clear and explicit testimony, when not opposed by other
evidence, would be allowed by all fair critics to control the argu¬
ment ; but not so when many other considerations tend to weaken
it. It would seem much easier to account for the confusion of tra¬
dition on the date of John’s banishment than to explain away the
definite references of the Apocalypse itself to the temple, the court,
and the city as still standing when the book was written. All tra¬
dition substantially agrees, that John’s last years of labour were
spent among the churches of Western Asia, and it is very possible
that he was banished to the isle of Patmos during the reign of
Domitian. That banishment may have occurred long after John
had gone to the same island for another reason, and later writers,
misapprehending the apostle’s words, might have easily confounded
the two events.
John’s own testimony is that he “was in the island which is
called Patmos on account of the word of God (did, rdv John’s own
X6yov rov denv) and the testimony of Jesus” (Rev. i, 9). testlmony-
Alford says, though he does not adopt this meaning, that “in St.
Paul’s usage, did would here signify for the sake of; that is, for the
purpose of receiving ; so that the apostle would have gone to Pat¬
mos [not as an exile, but] by special revelation in order to receive
this Apocalypse. Again, keeping to this meaning of did , these
words may mean that he visited Patmos in pursuance of, for the
purposes of, his ordinary apostolic employment, which might well
be designated by these substantives.” 2 This proper and all-suffi-
1 See Stuart, Commentary on the Apocalypse, vol. i, pp. 265-269.
2 Greek Testament, in loco. See also De Wette, in loco. Alford’s “three objec¬
tions” appear to us without force; for (1) the mention of tribulation and patience in
this verse by no means requires us to understand that he was then suffering from ban¬
ishment. (2) The parallels (chap, vi, 9 ; xx, 4) which he cites to determine the use
of did are offset by its use in ii, b ; iv, 11 ; xii, 11 ; xiii, 14 ; xviii, 10, 15, in all which
places, as also in vi, 9 and xx, 4, it is to be understood as setting forth the ground or
reason of what is stated. This meaning holds alike, whether we believe that John
went to Patmos freely or as an exile, on account of the word of God. Comp. Winer,
N. T, Grammar, § 49, on did. (3) The traditional banishment of John to Patmos may
have occurred, as we have shown above, long after he had first gone there on account
of the testimony of Jesus.
240
PRINCIPLES OF
cient explanation of his words allows us to suppose that John re¬
ceived the Revelation in Patmos, whither he had gone, either by
some special divine call, or in pursuance of his apostolic labours.
The tradition, therefore, of his exile under Domitian may be true,
and at the same time not affect the question of the date of the
Apocalypse.1
Turning now to inquire what internal evidence may be found
internal evi touching the historical standpoint of the writer, observe :
dence of date. (1) That no critic of any note has ever claimed that the
six poims. later date is required by any internal evidence. (2) On
the contrary, if John the apostle is the author, the comparatively
rough Hebraic style of the language unquestionably argues for it
an earlier date than his Gospel or Epistles. For, special pleading
aside, it must on all rational grounds be conceded, that a Hebrew,
in the supposed condition of John, would, after years of intercourse
and labour in the churches of Asia, acquire by degrees a purer
Greek style. (3) The address “ to the seven churches which are in
Asia” (i, 4, 11), implies that, at this time, there were only seven
churches in that Asia where Paul was once forbidden by the Spirit
to speak the word (Acts xvi, 6, 1). Macdonald says, “ An earth¬
quake, in the ninth year of Nero’s reign, overwhelmed both Lao-
dicea and Colossse (Pliny, Hist. Nat., v, 41), and the church at the
latter place does not appear to have been restored. As the two
places were in close proximity, what remained of the church at
Colossse probably became identified with the one at Laodicea.
The churches at Tralles and Magnesia could not have been estab¬
lished until a considerable time after the Apocalypse was written.
Those who contend for the later date, when there must have been
a greater number of churches than seven in the region designated
by the apostle, fail to give any sufficient reason for his mentioning
no more. That they mystically or symbolically represent others is
surely not such a reason.”2 (4) The prominence in which persecu¬
tion from the Jews is set forth in the Epistles to the seven churches
also argues an early date. After the fall of Jerusalem, Christian
persecution and troubles came almost altogether from pagan sources,
and J ewish opposition and J udaizing heretics became of little note.
. 1 Any one who will compare the rapidity of Paul’s movements on his missionary
journeys, and note how he addressed epistles to some of his churches (e. g., Tliessa-
lonians) a few months after his first visitation, will have no difficulty in understand¬
ing how John could have visited all the seven churches of Asia, and also have gone
thence to Patmos and received the Revelation, within a year after departing from
Jerusalem. But John, like Paul, probably wrote to churches he had not visited.
2 The Life and Writings of John, p. 155.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
241
(5) A most weighty argument for the early date appears in the
mention of the temple, court, and city in chapter xi, 1-3. These
references and the further designation, in verse 8, of that city
“ which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where .also their
Lord was crucified,” obviously imply that the Jewish temple, court,
and city were yet standing. To plead that these familiar appella¬
tives are not real, but only mystical allusions, is to assume the very
point in question. The most simple reference should stand unless
convincing reasons to the contrary be shown. When the writer
proceeds to characterize the city by a proper symbolical name, he
calls it Sodom and Egypt, and is careful to tell us that it is so called
spiritually (Trvevfmrirccbg), but, as if to prevent any possibility of
misunderstanding his reference, he adds that it is the place where
the Lord was crucified.
(6) Finally, what should especially impress every reader is the
emphatic statement, placed in the very title of the book, and re¬
peated in one form and another again and again, that this is a
revelation of “ things which must shortly ( ev rdxei) come to pass,”
and the time of which is near at hand (eyyvg, Rev. i, 1,3; xxii, 6, 7,
10, 12, 20). If the seer, writing a few years before the terrible
catastrophe, had the destruction of Jerusalem and its attendant
woes before him, all these expressions have a force and definiteness
which every interpreter must recognize.1 But if the things contem-
1 The trend of modern criticism is unmistakably toward the adoption of the early
date of the Apocalypse, and yet the best scholars differ. Elliott, Ilengstenberg,
Lange, Alford, and Whedon contend strongly that the testimony of Irenaeus and the
ancient tradition ought to control the question ; while, on the other hand, Liicke,
Neander, DeWette, Ewald, Bleek, Auberlen, Iiilgenfeld, Dusterdieck, Stuart, Macdon¬
ald, Davidson, J. B. Lightfoot, Glasgow, Farrar, Westeott, Cowles, and Schaff main¬
tain that the book, according to its own internal evidence, must have been written, be¬
fore the destruction of Jerusalem. I he last-named scholar, in the new edition of his
Church History (vol. i, pp. 834-837), revokes his acceptance of the Domitian date
which he affirmed thirty years ago, and now maintains that internal evidence for an
earlier date outweighs the external tradition. Writers on both sides of this question
have probably been too much influenced by some theory of the seven kings in chap,
xvii, 10 (see below, p. 481), and have placed the composition much later than valid
evidence warrants. Glasgow (The Apoc. Trans, and Expounded, pp. 9-38) adduces
proof not easy to be set aside that the Revelation was written before any of the
Epistles, probably somewhere between A. D. 50 and 54. Is it not supposable that one
reason why Paul was forbidden to preach the word in Western Asia (Acts xvi, 0) was
that John was either already there, or about to enter? The prevalent opinion that
the First Epistle of John was written after the fall of Jerusalem rests on no certain
evidence. To assume, from the writer’s use of the term “ little children, that he was
very far advanced in years, is futile. John was probably no older than Paul, but
some time before the fall of Jerusalem the latter was wont to speak of himself as
“Paul the aged.” Pliilem. 9.
IB
242
PRINCIPLES OF
plated were in the distant future, these simple words of time must
be subjected to the most violent and unnatural treatment in order to
make the statements of the writer compatible with the exposition.
A consideration of these evidences, external and internal, of the
Great delicacy ^ate -Ap°catypse> shows what delicacy and dis¬
and discriinina- crimination are requisite in an interpreter in order to
tion essential, determine the historical standpoint of such a prophet¬
ical book. As far as possible, all systems of prophetical interpreta¬
tion should be held in abeyance until that question is determined ;
but it may become necessary, in view of the conflicting evidences
of the date and the difficulties of the book itself, to withhold all
judgment as to the historical standpoint of the writer until we have
tried the different methods of interpretation, and have thus had
opportunity to judge which exposition affords the best solution of
the difficulties.
The controversy over the date of Daniel’s prophecies springs
mainly from the miraculous narratives recorded in the first part of
the book, and from the rationalistic assumption that neither mir¬
acles nor such detailed prediction of future events as the visions
Questions of ail(^ dreams involve are consistent with scientific histor-
historicai criti- ical criticism. The question is one that belongs more
cism involved. pr0perjy ^he department of Biblical Introduction;
but it is evident that the determining of the date of the prophecies
is essential to their interpretation, and if it be admitted that they
were written after the events which they assume to foretell, the
credibility of the book is necessarily destroyed, and any scientific
exposition of it must thence proceed as if dealing with a forgery or
a pious fraud. The same may be said of that criticism which places
the composition of the Pentateuch long after the days of Moses.
Such a hypothesis forces the interpreter who adopts it to give an
unnatural meaning to all those words and acts which are attributed
to Moses, and which assume the historical standpoint of the great
Lawgiver of Israel. The various rationalistic theories of interpreta¬
tion, which ignore or deny the supernatural, and proceed on the
assumption that any of the sacred writers feign a historical stand¬
point which they did not really occupy, are continually changing,
and lead only to confusion.
This, then, is to be held as a canon of interpretation, that all due
regard must be had to the person and circumstances of the author,
the time and place of his writing, and the occasion and reasons
which led him to write. Nor must we omit similar inquiry into the
character, conditions, and history of those for whom the book was
written, and of those also of whom the book makes mention.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
243
CHAPTER X.
FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE.
Those portions of the Holy Scriptures which are written in figura¬
tive language call for special care in their interpretation. Tropes many
When a word is employed in another than its primary and various,
meaning, or applied to some object different from that to which it
is appropriated in common usage, it is called a trope.1 The neces¬
sities and purposes of human speech require the frequent use of
words in such a tropical sense. We have already seen, under the
head of the usus loquendi of words, how many terms come to have
a variety of meanings. Some words lose their primary signification
altogether, and are employed only in a secondary or acquired sense.
Most words in every language have been used or are capable of be¬
ing used in this way. And very many words have so long and so
constantly maintained a figurative sense that their primary meaning
has become obsolete and forgotten. How few remember that the
word law denotes that which is laid; or that the common expres¬
sions right and wrong , which have almost exclusively a moral im-
port, originally signified straight and crooked. Other words are so
commonly used in a twofold sense that we immediately note when
they are employed literally and when figuratively. When James,
Cephas, and John are called pillars of the Church (Gal. ii, 9), we see
at once that the word pillars is a metaphor. And when the Church
itself i^ said to be “built upon the foundation of the apostles and
prophets ” (Eph. ii, 20), we know that a figure, the image of a house
or temple, is meant to be depicted before the mind.
The origin of figures of speech has been generally attributed
to the poverty of languages in their earliest stages. 0riginandne_
The scarcity of words required the use of one and the cessityof flgur-
■' t ,, -»T i ative language,
same word in a variety of meanings. -No language,
says Blair, “ is so copious as to have a separate word for every sep-^
arate idea. Men naturally sought to abridge this labour of multi¬
plying words ad infinitum ; and, in order to lay less burden on their
memories, made one word, which they had already appropiiated to
a certain idea or object, stand also for some other idea or object
1 From the Greek rponoc, a turn or change of language ; that is, a word turned
from its primary usage to another meaning.
244
PRINCIPLES OF
between which and the primary one they found or fancied some
relation.” 1
But it is not solely in the scarcity of words that we are to find
the origin of figurative language. The natural operations of the
human mind prompt men to trace analogies and make comparisons.
Pleasing emotions are excited and the imagination is gratified by
the use of metaphors and similes. Were we to suppose a language
sufficiently copious in words to express all possible conceptions, the
huYnan mind would still require us to compare and contrast our
concepts, and such a procedure would soon necessitate a variety of
figures of speech. So much of our knowledge is acquired through the
senses, that all our abstract ideas and our spiritual language have a
material basis. “It is not too much to say,” observes Max Mallei,
“ that the whole dictionary of ancient religion is made up of meta¬
phors. With us these metaphors are all forgotten. W e speak of
spirit without thinking of breath, of heaven without thinking of
sky, of pardon without thinking of a release, of revelation without
thinking of a veil. But in ancient language every one of these
words, nay, every word that does not refer to sensuous objects, is
still in a chrysalis stage, half material and half spiritual, and rising
and falling in its character according to the capacities of speakers
and hearers.” 2
And more than this. May we not safely affirm that the analogies
Figures of traceable between the natural and spiritual worlds are
divine Smo- P3,1'*8 °f a divine harmony which it is the noblest men-
nies. tal exercise to discover and unfold? In his chapter,
“ On Teaching by Parables,” Trench has the following profound
observations: “It is not merely that these analogies assist to make
the truth intelligible, or, if intelligible before, present it more viv¬
idly to the mind, which is all that some will allow them. Their
power lies deeper than this, in the harmony unconsciously felt by
all men, and by deeper minds continually recognized and plainly
perceived, between the natural and spiritual worlds, so that analo¬
gies from the first are felt to be something more than illustrations,
happily but yet arbitrarily chosen. They are arguments, and may
be alleged as witnesses; the world of nature being throughout a
witness for . the world of spirit, proceeding from the same hand,
growing out of the same root, and being constituted for that very
end. All lovers of truth readily acknowledge these mysterious
harmonies, and the force of arguments derived from them. To
them the things on earth are copies of the things in heaven. They
1 Rhetoric, Lecture xiv, On the Origin and Nature of Figurative Language.
8 Science of Religion, p. 118.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
245
know that the earthly tabernacle is made after the pattern of things
seen in the mount (Exod. xxv, 40; 1 Chron. xxviii, 11, 12); and the
question suggested by the angel in Milton is often forced upon
their meditations —
‘ What if earth
Be but the shadow of heaven and things therein
Each to other like, more than on earth is thought ? ’
For it is a great misunderstanding of the matter to think of these
as happily, but yet arbitrarily, chosen illustrations, taken with a
skilful selection from the great stock and storehouse of unappro¬
priated images; from whence it would have been possible that the
same skill might have selected others as good or nearly as good.
Rather they belong to one another, the type and the thing typified,
by an inward necessity ; they were linked together long before by
the law of a secret affinity. It is not a happy accident which has
yielded so wondrous an analogy as that of husband and wife to set
forth the mystery of Christ’s relation to his elect Church. There
is far more in it than this: the earthly relation is indeed but a low¬
er form of the heavenly, on which it rests, and of which it is the
utterance. When Christ spoke to Nicodemus of a new birth, it
was not merely because birth into this natural world was the most
suitable figure that could be found for the expression of that spir¬
itual act which, without any power of our own, is accomplished
upon us when we are brought into God’s kingdom; but all the cir¬
cumstances of this natural birth had been pre-ordained to bear the
burden of so great a mystery. The Lord is king, not borrowing
this title from the kings of the earth, but having lent his own title
to them— and not the name only, but so ordering, that all true rule
and government upon earth, with its righteous laws, its stable ordi¬
nances, its punishment and its grace, its majesty and its terror,
should tell of Him and of his kingdom which ruleth over all— so
that “kingdom of God” is not in fact a figurative expression, but
most literal: it is rather the earthly kingdoms and the earthly kings
that are figures and shadows of the true. And as in the woild of
man and human relations, so also is it in the world of nature. The
untended soil which yields thorns and briers as its natural harvest is
a permanent type and enduring parable of man’s heart, which has
been submitted to the same curse, and, without a watchfnl spiritual
husbandry, will as surely put forth its briers and its thorns. The
weeds that will mingle during the time of growth with the corn,
and yet are separated from it at the last, tell ever one and the same
tale of the present admixture and future sundering of the righteous
246
PRINCIPLES OF
and the wicked. The decaying of the insignificant, unsightly seed
in the earth, and the rising up out of that decay and death of the
graceful stalk and the fruitful ear, contain evermore the prophecy
of the final resurrection, even as this is itself in its kind a resurrec¬
tion — the same process at a lower £tage — the same power putting
itself forth upon meaner things. . . . And thus, besides his revela¬
tion in words, God has another and an elder, and one indeed with¬
out which it is inconceivable how that other could be made, for
from this it appropriates all its signs of communication, lhis en¬
tire moral and visible world from first to last, with its kings and its
subjects, its parents and its children, its sun and its moon, its sow¬
ing and its harvest, its light and its darkness, its sleeping and its
Waking, its birth and its death, is from beginning to end a mighty
parable, a great teaching of supersensuous truth, a help at once to
Our faith and to our understanding.” 1
The principal sources of the figurative language of the Bible are
Sources Of scrip- the physical features of the Holy Land, the habits and
turai imagery, customs of its ancient tribes, and the forms of Israel-
itish worship. All these sources should, accordingly, be closely
studied in order to the interpretation of the figurative portions of
the Scriptures. As we traced a Divine Providence in the use of
Hebrew, Chaldee, and Greek as the languages of God’s inspired
revelation, and as we believe that the progeny of Abraham through
Jacob were the divinely chosen people to receive and guard the
Cracles of God, so may we also believe that the Land of Promise
was an essential element in the process of developing and perfect¬
ing the rhetorical form of the sacred records. “ It is neither fiction
nor extravagance,” says Thomson, “to call this land a microcosm —
a little world in itself, embracing every thing which in the thought
C)f the Creator would be needed in developing this language of the
kingdom of heaven. Nor is it easy to see how the end sought
Could have been reached at all without just such a land, furnished
and fitted up, as this was, by the overruling providence of God.
All were needed — mountain and valley, hill and plain, lake and
river, sea and sky, summer and winter, seedtime and harvest, trees,
shrubs, and flowers, beasts and birds, men and women, tribes and
nations, governments and religions false and true, and other things
innumerable; none of which could be spared. Think, if you can,
of a Bible with all these left out, or others essentially different sub¬
stituted in their place — a Bible without patriarch or pilgrimage,
with no bondage in Egypt, or deliverance therefrom, no Red Sea,
no Sinai with its miracles, no wilderness of wandering with all the
1 Notes on the Parables, pp. 18-21.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
247
included scenes and associated incidents; without a Jordan with a
Canaan over against it, or a Dead Sea with Sodom beneath it; no
Moriah with its temple, no Zion with palaces, nor Hinnom below,
with the fire and the worm that never die. Whence could have
come our divine songs and psalms, if the sacred poets had lived in
a land without mountain or valley, where were no plains covered
o\ er with corn, no fields clothed with green, no hills planted with
the olive, the fig, and the vine? All are needed, and all do good
service, from the oaks of Bashan and the cedars of Lebanon to the
hyssop that springeth out of the wall. The tiny mustard-seed has
its moral, and lilies their lessons. Thorns and thistles utter ad¬
monitions, and revive sad memories. The sheep and the fold, the
shepherd and his dog, the ass and his owner, the ox and his goad,
the camel and his burden, the horse with neck clothed with thun¬
der; lions that roar, wolves that raven, foxes that destroy, harts
panting for water brooks, and roes feeding among lilies, doves in
their windows, sparrows on the housetop, storks in the heavens,
eagles hasting to their prey; things great and small; the busy bee
improving each shining hour, and the careful ant laying up store in
harvest — nothing too large to serve, too small to aid. These are
merely random specimens out of a world of rich materials ; but we
must not forget that they are all found in this land where the dia¬
lect of God’s spiritual kingdom was to be taught and spoken.”1
It is scarcely necessary, and, indeed, quite impracticable, to lay
down specific rules for determining when language is gpeciflc rule3
used figuratively and when literally. It is an old and unnecessary and
oft-repeated hermeneutical principle that words should imPracticabIe*
be understood in their literal sense unless such literal interpreta¬
tion involves a manifest contradiction or absurdity. It should be
observed, however, that this principle, when reduced to practice,
becomes simply an appeal to every man’s rational judgment. And
what to one seems very absurd and improbable may be to another
altogether simple and self-consistent. Some expositors have claimed
to see necessity for departing from the literal sense where others
saw none, and it seems impossible to establish any fixed rule that
will govern in all cases. Reference must be had to the general
character and style of the particular book, to the plan and purpose
of the author, and to the context and scope of the particular passage
in question. Especially should strict regard be had to the usage-
1 The Physical Basis of our Spiritual Language; by W. M. Thomson, in the
Bibliotheca Sacra for January, 1872. Compare the same author’s articles on The
Natural Basis of our Spiritual Language in the same periodical for Jan., 1873; Jan.,
1874; Jan., 1875; July, 1876; and Jan., 1877.
248
PRINCIPLES OF
of the sacred writers, as determined by a thorough collation and
comparison of all parallel passages. The same general principles,
by which we ascertain the grammatico-historical sense, apply also
to the interpretation of figurative language, and it should never be
forgotten that the figurative portions of the Bible are as certain
and truthful as the most prosaic chapters. Metaphors, allegories,
parables, and symbols are divinely chosen forms of setting forth
the oracles of God, and we must not suppose their meaning to be
so vague and uncertain as to be past finding out. In the main, we
believe the figurative parts of the Scriptures are not so difficult to
understand as many have imagined. By a careful and judicious
discrimination the interpreter should aim to determine the char¬
acter and purport of each particular trope, and explain it in harmony
with the common laws of language, and the author’s context, scope,
and plan.
Figures of speech have been distributed into two great classes,
Figures of words %ures words and figures of thought. The distinc-
and figures of tion is an easy one in that a figure of words is one in
which the image of resemblance is confined to a single
word, whereas a figure of thought may require for its expression a
great many words and sentences. Metaphor and metonomy are fig¬
ures of words, in which the comparison is reduced to a single expres¬
sion, as when, characterizing Herod, Jesus said, “Go and say to that
fox” (Luke xiii, 32). In Psalm xviii, 2, we find seven figures of
words crowded into a single verse: “Jehovah, my rock ('J&p), and
my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my rock — I will seek
refuge in him; — my shield and horn of my salvation, my height.”
Figures of thought, on the other hand, are seen in similes, alle¬
gories, and parables, where no single word will suffice to convey
the idea intended, but an entire passage or section must be taken
together. But this classification of figures will be of little value in
the study of the figurative language of the Scriptures.
All figures of speech are founded upon some resemblance or rela¬
tion which different objects bear to one another, and it often hap¬
pens, in rapid and brilliant style, that a cause is put for its effect, or
an effect for its cause; or the name of a subject is used when only
some adjunct or associated circumstance is intended. This figure
Metonymy of °f speech is called Metonymy, from the Greek gera,
cause and effect, denoting change, and bvoga, a name. Such change and
substitution of one name for another give language a force and
impressiveness not otherwise attainable. Thus, Job is represented
as saying, “ My arrow is incurable” (Job xxxiv, 6) ; where by arrow
is evidently meant a wound caused by an arrow, and allusion is
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
249
made to chapter vi, 4, where the bitter afflictions of Job are repre¬
sented as caused by the arrows of the Almighty. So again in Luke
xvi, 29 and xxiv, 27, Moses and tlie prophets are used for the writ¬
ings of which they were the authors. The name of a patriarch is
sometimes used when his posterity is intended (Gen. ix, 27, Amos
vii, 9). In Gen. xlv, 21; Num. iii, 16; Deut. xvii, 6, the word mouth
is used for saying or commandment which issues from one’s mouth.
“According to the mouth (order or command) of Pharaoh.” “Ac¬
cording to the mouth (word) of Jehovah.” “At the mouth (word,
testimony) of two witnesses or three witnesses shall the dying one
(nsn, the one appointed to die, or worthy of death,) be put to
death.” The words lip and tongue are used in a similar way in
Prov. xii, 19, and frequently. “The lip of truth shall be estab¬
lished forever; but only for a moment [Heb. until I shall wink]
the tongue of falsehood.” Comp. Prov. xvii, 7 ; xxv, 15. In Eze¬
kiel xxiii, 29, “They shall take-away all thy labour, and leave thee
naked,” the word labour is used instead of earnings or results of
labour. All such cases of metonymy — and examples might be
multiplied indefinitely — are commonly classified under the head of
Metonymy of cause and effect. To this same class belong also such
passages as Exod. vii, 19, where, instead of vessels, the names of
the materials of which they were made are used: “Stretch out thy
hand over the waters of Egypt . . . and there shall be blood in all
the land of Egypt, both in wood and in stone;” that is, in wooden
vessels and stone reservoirs.
Another use of this figure occurs where some adjunct, associated
idea, or circumstance is put for the main subject, and vice Metonymy of
versa. Thus, in Lev. xix, 32, nyt?, gray hair, hoariness , subject and ad-
is used for a person of advanced age : “ Thou shalt rise 3
up before the hoary head.” Comp. Gen. xlii, 38: “Ye will bring
down my gray hairs in sorrow to the grave.” AY hen Moses com¬
mands the elders of Israel to take a lamb according to their families
and “kill the passover” (Exod. xii, 21), he evidently uses the word
passover for the paschal lamb. In Hosea i, 2, it is written : “ The
land has grievously committed whoredom.” Here the word land is
used by metonymy for the Israelitish people dwelling in the land.
So also, in Matt, iii, 5, Jerusalem and Judea are put for the people
that inhabited those places: “Then went out unto him Jerusalem
and all Judea and all the region round about the Jordan.” The
metonymy of the subject for its adjunct is also seen in passages
where the container is put for the thing contained, as, Ihou pie-
parest a table before me in the presence of my enemies” (Psa.
xxiii, 5). « Blessed shall be thy basket, and thy kneading trough ”
250
PRINCIPLES OF
(Deut. xxviii, 5). “Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the
cup of demons, ye cannot partake of the table of the Lord and of the
table of demons ” (1 Cor. x, 21). Here table, basket, kneading-trough,
and cup are used for that which they contained, or for which they
were used. The following examples illustrate how the abstract is
used for the concrete: “He shall justify the circumcision by faith,
and the uncircumcision through faith” (Rom. iii, 30). Heie
word circumcision designates the Jews, and uncircumcision the
Gentiles. In Rom. xi, 7, the word election is used for the aggre¬
gate of those who composed the “remnant according to the elec¬
tion of grace” (verse 5), the elect portion of Israel. And Paul tells
the Ephesians (v, 8) with great force of language: “Ye were once
darkness, but now light in the Lord.”
There is another use of this figure which may be called metonymy
of the sign and the thing signified. Thus Isa. xxii, 22:
S°an7thing “ I will put the key of the house of David upon his
signified. shoulder, and he shall open, and no one shutting, and
he shall shut, and no one opening.” Here keg is used as the sign
of control over the house, of power to open or close the doors when¬
ever one pleases; and the putting the key upon the shoulder denotes
that the power, symbolized by the key, will be a heavy burden on
him who exercises it. Compare Matt, xvi, 19. So again diadem
and crown are used in Ezek. xxi, 26, for regal dignity and power,
and sceptre in Gen. xlix, 10, and Zech, x, 11, for kingly dominion.
In Isaiah’s glowing picture of the Messianic era (ii, 4) he describes
the utter cessation of national strife and warfare by the significant
words, “They shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their
spears into pruninghooks.” In Ezek. vii, 27, we have an example
of the use of the thing signified for the sign: “The prince shall be
clothed with desolation; ” that is, arrayed in the garments or signs
of desolation.
Another kind of trope, quite similar in character to metonymy, is
that bv which the whole is put for a part, or a part for
Synecdoche. * \ . £
the whole; a genus tor a species, or a species tor a genus;
the singular for the plural, and the plural for the singular. This
is called Synecdoche, from the Greek ovv, with, and kitdexofiai, to re¬
ceive from, which. con\eys the general idea of receiving and associating
one thing along with another. Thus “ all the world ” is used in Luke
ii, 1, for the Roman Empire; and in Matt, xii, 40, three days and
three nights are used for only part of that time. The soul is often
named when the wrhole man or person is intended; as, “We were
in all in the ship two hundred threescore and sixteen souls (Acts
xxvii, 37). The singular of dag is used by synecdoche for days or
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
251
period in such passages as Eccles. xii, 3: “In the day when the
keepers of the house tremble.” The singular of stork , turtle, crane,
and swallow is used in Jer. viii, 1, as the representative of the whole
class to which each belongs. Jeplithah is said to have been “ buried
in the cities of Gilead” (Judg. xii, 7), where, of course, only one of
those cities is intended. In Psa. xlvi, 9, the Lord is represented as
“causing wars to cease unto the extremity of the land; bow he will
shiver, and cut in pieces spear; war chariots he will burn in the
fire.” Here, by specifying bow, spear , and chariots, the Psalmist
doubtless designed to represent Jehovah’s triumph as an utter de¬
struction of all implements of war. In Deut. xxxii, 41, the flashing
gleam of the sword is put for its edge: “If I sharpen the lightning
of my sword, and my hand lay hold on judgment.”
We have called attention, in the earlier part of this wfork, to the
tendency of the Hebrew mind to form and express .
... . . , , , „ , T f Personification.
vivid conceptions of the external wrorld.* Inanimate
objects were spoken of as if instinct "with life. And this tendency
is noticeable in all languages, and occasions the figure of speech
called Personification.1 2 It is so common a feature of language that
it often occurs in the most ordinary conversation; but it is more
especially suited to the language of imagination and passion, and
appears most frequently in the poetical parts of Scripture. The
statement in Num. xvi, 32, that “the earth opened her mouth and
swallowed ” Korah and his associates, is an instance of personifica¬
tion, the like of which often occurs in prose narration. More strik¬
ing is the language of Matt, vi, 34: “Be not therefore anxious for
the morrow, for the morrow will be anxious for itself.” Here the
morrow itself is pictured before us as a living person, pressed by
care and anxiety. But the more forcible instances of personifica¬
tion are found in such passages as Psa. cxiv, 3, 4: “The sea saw
and fled; the Jordan was turned backward. The mountains leaped
like rams; hills like the sons of the flock.” Or, again, in Hab.
iii, 10: “Mountain^ saw thee, they writhe; a flood of waters passed
over; the deep gave his voice; on high his hands he lifted.” Here
mountains, hills, rivers, and sea, are introduced as things of life.
They are assumed to have self-conscious powers of thought, feel¬
ing, and locomotion, and yet it is all the emotional language of im¬
agination and poetic fervour.
1 See above, pp. 86, 102.
2 The more technical name is Prosopopoeia , from the Greek irpoauTwy, face , or per¬
son, and 7 roitw, to make ; and, accordingly, means to give personal form or character
to an object. Prosopopoeia is held by some to be a term of more extensive applica¬
tion than personification.
252
PRINCIPLES OF
Apostrophe.
Apostrophe is a figure closely allied to personification. The
name is derived from the Greek and, from , and orpeQu),
to turn , and denotes especially the turning of a speaker
away from his immediate hearers, and addressing an absent and
imaginary person or thing. When the address is to an inanimate
object, the figures of personification and apostrophe combine in one
and the same passage. So, in connexion with the passage above
cited from Psa. cxiv. After personifying the sea, the Jordan, and
the mountains, the psalmist suddenly turns in direct address to
them, and says: “ What is the matter with thee, O thou sea, that
thou fieest? Thou Jordan, that thou art turning backward ? Ye
mountains, that ye leap like rams; ye hills, like the sons of the
flock?” The following apostrophe is peculiarly impressive by the
force of its imagery. “ O, Sword of Jehovah! How long wilt
thou not be quiet? Gather thyself to thy sheath; be at rest and
be dumb” (Jer. xlvii, 6). But apostrophe proper is an address to
some absent person either living or dead; as when David laments
for the dead Absalom (2 Sam. xviii, 33), and, as if the departed
soul were present to hear, exclaims: “My son Absalom! my son,
my son Absalom ! Would that I had died in thy stead, O Absa¬
lom, my son, my son ! ” The apostrophe to the fallen king of
Babylon, in Isa. xiv, 9-20, is one of the boldest and sublimest ex¬
amples of the kind in any language. Similar instances of bold and
impassioned address abound in the Hebrew prophets, and, as we
have seen, the oriental mind was notably given to express thoughts
and feelings in this emotional style.
Interrogatory forms of expression are often the strongest possible
Interrotfat’on wa7 enunciatin£ important truths. As when it is
written in Heb. i, 14, concerning the angels: “Are they
not all ministering spirits sent forth into service for the sake of
those who are to inherit salvation?” Here the doctrine of the
ministry of angels in such a noble service is by implication as¬
sumed as an undisputed belief. The interrogatories in Rom. viii,
33-35, afford a most impressive style of setting forth the triumph
of believers in the blessed provisions of redemption: “Who shall
bring charge against God’s elect ones? Shall God who justifies?
Who is he that is condemning? Is it Christ Jesus that died, but,
rather, that was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of
God, who also intercedes for us ? Who shall separate us from the
love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or anguish, or persecution, or
famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? Even as it is written,
For thy. sake we are killed all the day; we were accounted as sheep
of slaughter. But in all these things we more than conquer through
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
253
him that loved ns.”1 Very frequent and conspicuous also are the
interrogatory forms of speech in the Book of Job. “ Knowest thou
this of old, from the placing of Adam on the earth, that the tri¬
umph of the wicked is short, and the joy of the profane for a
moment?” (xx, 4). “The secret of Eloah canst thou find? Or
canst thou find out Shaddai to perfection?” (xi, 7). Jehovah’s an¬
swer out of the whirlwind (chaps, xxxviii-xli) is very largely in
this form.
Hyperbole is a rhetorical figure which consists in exaggeration,
or magnifying an object beyond reality. It has its nat-
. ... ° J j. , - i , . . . Hyperbole,
ural origin in the tendency oi youthful and imaginative
minds to portray facts in the liveliest colours. An ardent imagina¬
tion would very naturally describe the appearance of the many
camps of the Midianites and Amalekites as in Judg. vii, 12: “Lying
in the valley like grasshoppers for multitude; and as to their
camels, no number, like the sand which is upon the shore of the
sea for multitude.” So the emotion of David prompts him to speak
of Saul and Jonathan as swifter than eagles and stronger than
lions (2 Sam. i, 23). Other scriptural examples of this figure are
the following: “ All night I make my bed to swim; with my tears
I dissolve my couch” (Psa. vi, 6). “Would that my head were
waters and my eyes a fountain of tears; and I would weep day and
night the slain of the daughter of my people ” (Jer. ix, 1). “ There
are also many other things which Jesus did, which things, if writ¬
ten every one, I suppose that the world itself would not contain
the books that should be written” (John xxi, 25). Such exagger¬
ated expressions, when not overdone, or occurring too frequently,
strike the attention and make an agreeable impression on the mind.
Another peculiar form of speech, deserving a passing notice
here, is irony, by which a speaker or writer says the
very opposite of what he intends. Elijah’s language to
the Baal worshippers (1 Kings xviii, 27) is an example of most
effective irony. Another example is Job xii, 1: “True it is that
ye are the people, and with you wisdom will die ! ” In 1 Cor.
iv, 8, Paul indulges in the following ironical vein: “Already ye
are filled; already ye are become rich; without us ye have reigned;
and I would indeed that ye did reign, that we also might reign with
you.” On this passage Meyer remarks: “The discourse, already in
1 The interrogative construction of this passage given above is maintained by many
of the best interpreters and critics, ancient and modern (as Augustine, Ambrosiaster,
Koppe, Reiche, Kollner, Olshausen, De Wette, Griesbach, Lachmann, Alford, Web¬
ster, and Jowett), and seems to us, on the whole, the most simple and satisfactory.
But see other constructions advocated in Meyer and Lange.
254
PRINCIPLES OP
vers^7, roused to a lively pitch, becomes now bitterly ironical, heap¬
ing stroke on stroke, even as the proud Corinthians, with their par¬
tisan conduct, needed an admonition (vovQeola, ver. 14) to teach them
humility.’’ The designation of the thirty pieces of silver, in Zech.
xi, 13, as “a glorious price,” is an example of sarcasm. Words of
derision and scorn, like those of the soldiers in Matt, xxvii, 30:
“ Hail, King of the Jews ! ” and those of the chief priests and scribes
in Mark xv, 32: “Let the Christ, the King of Israel, now come
down from the cross, that we may see and believe,” are not proper
examples of irony, but of malignant mockery.
CHAPTER XL
SIMILE AND METAPHOR.
Simile.
When a formal comparison is made between two different objects,
Simile defined so as to impress the mind with some resemblance or
and illustrated, likeness, the figure is called a simile. A beautiful
example is found in Isa. lv, 10, 11: “ For as the rain and the snow
come down from the heavens, and thither do not return, but water
the land, and cause it to bear and to sprout, and it gives seed to
the sower and bread to the eater: so shall my word be which goes
forth out of my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but do that
which I desired, and be successful in what I sent it.” The apt and
varied allusions of this passage set forth the beneficial efficacy of
God’s word in a most impressive style. “ The images chosen,” ob7
serves Delitzsch, “ are rich with allusions. As snow and rain are
the mediate cause of growth, and thus also of the enjoyment of
what is harvested, so also by the word of God the ground and soil
of the human heart is softened, refreshed, and made fertile and
vegetative, and this word gives the prophet, who is like the sower,
the seed which he scatters, and it brings with it bread that nour¬
ishes the soul; for every word that proceeds from the mouth of God
is bread ” (Deut. viii, 3).1 Another illustration of the word of God
appears in Jer. xxiii, 29: “Is not my word even as the fire, saitli
Jehovah, and as a hammer that breaks a rock in pieces?” Here
are portrayed the fury and force of the divine word against false
1 Biblical Commentary on Isaiah, in loco
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
255
prophets. It is a word of judgment that burns and smites the sin¬
ful offender unto utter ruin, and the intensity of its power is en¬
hanced by the double simile.
The tendency of the Hebrew writers to crowd several similes to¬
gether is noticeable, and this may be in part accounted Crowdlng of
for by the nature of Hebrew parallelism. Tftus in Isa. similes togeta-
i, 8: “ The daughter of Zion is left as a booth in a vine- er*
yard; as a night-lodge in a field of cucumbers; as a city besieged.”
And again in verse 30: “Ye shall be as an oak withering in foliage,
and as a garden to which there is no water.” And in xxix, 8: “It
shall be as when the hungry dreams, and lo, he is eating, and he
awakes, and his soul is empty; and as when the thirsty dreams, and
lo, he is drinking, and he awakes, and lo, he is faint, and his soul is
eagerly longing: so shall be the multitude of all the nations that
are warring against Mount Zion.” But though the figures are thus
multiplied, they have a natural affinity, and are not open to the
charge of being mixed or confused.
Similes are of frequent occurrence in the Scriptures, and being
designed to illustrate an author’s meaning, they involve similes seif-in-
no difficulties of interpretation. When the Psalmist terpreting.
says: “I am like a pelican of the wilderness; I have become as an
owl of desert places; I watch and am become as a solitary sparrow
on a roof ” (Psa. cii, 6), he conveys a vivid picture of his utter
loneliness. An image of gracefulness and beauty is presented by
the language of Cant, ii, 9: “My beloved is like a roe, or a young
fawn.” Compare verse 16, and chapter iv, 1-5. Ezekiel (xxxii, 2)
compares Pharaoh to a young lion of the nations, and a dragon
(crocodile) in the seas. It is said in Matt, xvii, 2, that when Jesus
became transfigured “ his face did shine as the sun, and his gar¬
ments became "white as the light.” In Matt, xxviii, 3, it is said
of the angel who rolled the stone from the sepulchre, that “his
appearance was as lightning, and his raiment white as snow.” In
Rom. xii, 4, the apostle illustrates the unity of the Church and the
diversity of its individual ministers by the following comparison:
“ Even as in one body we have many members, and all the mem¬
bers have not the same work: so we, who are many, are one body
in Christ, and severally members one of another.” Compare also
1 Cor. xii, 12. In all these and other instances the comparison is
self-interpreting, and the main thought is intensified by the imagery.
A fine example of simile is that at the close of the sermon on the
mount (Matt, vii, 24-27): “Every one therefore who hears these
words of mine, and does them, shall be likened unto a wise man,
who built his house upon the rock.” Whether we here take the
256
PRINCIPLES OF
bfiotwdrjOETcu, shall be likened, as a prediction of what will take place
in the final judgment — I will then make him like; show as a matter
of fact that he is like (Tholuck, Meyer), or as simply the predi¬
cate of formal comparison (the future tense merely contemplating
future cases as they shall arise), the similitude is in either case the
same. We have on fhe one hand the figure of a house based upon
the immovable rock, which neither storm nor flood can shake; on
the other of a house based upon the shifting sand, and unable to
resist the violence of winds and floods. The similitude, thus formal¬
ly developed, becomes, in fact, a parable, and the mention of rains,
floods , and winds implies that the house is to be tested at roof,
foundation, and sides — top, bottom, and middle. But we should
not, like the mystics, seek to find some special and distinct form of
temptation in these three words. The grand similitude sets forth
impressively the certain future of those who hear and obey the
words of Jesus, and also of those who hear and refuse to obey.
Compare with this similitude the allegory in Ezek. xiii, 11-15.
Blair traces the pleasure we take in comparisons of this kind to
. three different sources. “ First, from the pleasure
Pleasures af- 7 1 .
forded by sim- which nature has annexed to that act of the mind by
which we compare two objects together, trace resem¬
blances among those that are different, and differences among those
that resemble each other; a pleasure, the final cause of which is to
prompt us to remark and observe, and thereby to make us advance
in useful knowledge. This operation of the mind is naturally and
universally agreeable, as appears from the delight which even chil¬
dren have in comparing things together, as soon as they are capa¬
ble of attending to the objects that surround them. Secondly, the
pleasure of comparison arises from the illustration which the simile
employed gives to the principal object; from the clearer view of it
which it presents, or the stronger impression of it which it stamps
upon the mind. And, thirdly, it arises from the introduction of a
new, and commonly a splendid object, associated to the principal
one of which we treat; and from the agreeable picture which that
object presents to the fancy; new scenes being thereby brought
into view, which, without the assistance of this figure, we could not
have enjoyed.” 1
There is, common to all languages, a class of illustrations, which
Assumed com- appropriately called assumed comparisons,
parisons or ii- They are not, strictly speaking, either similes, or rneta-
lustrations. phors, or parables, or allegories, and yet they include
some elements of them all. A fact or figure is introduced for
1 Lectures on Rhetoric, lecture xvii.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
257
the sake of illustration, and yet no formal words of comparison are
used. But the reader or hearer perceives at once that a compari¬
son is assumed. Sometimes such assumed comparisons follow a
regular simile. In 2 Tim. ii, 3, we read: “Partake thou in hard¬
ship as a good soldier of Christ Jesus.” But immediately after
these words, and keeping the figure thus introduced in his mind,
the apostle adds: “No one on service as a soldier entangles himself
with the affairs of life; in order that he may please him who en¬
listed him as a soldier.” Here is no figure of speech, but the plain
statement of a fact fully recognized in military service. But fol¬
lowing the simile of verse 3, it is evidently intended as a further
illustration, and Timothy is left to make his own application of it.
And then follow two other illustrations, which it is also assumed
the reader will apply for himself. “And if also any one contend
as an athlete, he is not crowned if he did not lawfully contend. The
labouring husbandman must first partake of the fruits.” These
are plain, literal statements, but a comparison is tacitly assumed,
and Timothy could not fail to make the proper application. The
true minister’s close devotion to his proper work, his cordial sub¬
mission, and conformity to lawful authority and order, and his
laborious activity, are the points especially emphasized by these
respective illustrations. So, again, in verses 20 and 21 of the same
chapter: “ In a great house there are not only vessels golden and
silver, but also wooden and earthen ones, and some Literal state-
unto honour and some unto dishonour.”
simple statement of facts intended for an illustration,
but not presented as a simile. It is suggested by the metaphor in
the preceding verse, in which the Lord’s own chosen, the pure who
confess his name, are represented as the firm foundation laid by
God, a beautifully inscribed substructure, which, however, is to be
gradually builded upon until the edifice becomes complete.1 Its
real character and purport are as if the apostle had said . And
now, for illustration, consider how, in a great house, etc. What
he says of this house is, in itself, no figure, but a literal statement
of what was commonly found in any extensive building; but in
verse 21 he makes his own application thus: “If, therefore, any
purify himself from these (persons like the troublesome error-
, as the babblers, Hymenseus, etc,, verses 16, 17, considered as
vessels unto dishonour), he shall be as a vessel unto honour, sancti¬
fied, useful to the Master, unto every good work prepared.”
A similar example of extended illustration appears in Matt, vii,
15-20: “Beware of the false prophets who come to you in sheeps
1 Compare what is said on Peter, the living stone, pp. 226-229.
Here is a ment’ but im"
nete is a plied compari_
one
ists,
17
258
PRINCIPLES OF
clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.” Here is a bold,
strong metaphor, obliging us to think of the false teacher as a wolf
covered over and concealed from outward view by the skin of a
sheep. But the next verse introduces another figure entirely:
“From their fruits ye will know them;” and then to make the
figure plainer, our Lord asks: “Do they gather grapes from thorns,
or figs from thistles?” The question demands a negative answer,
and is itself an emphatic way of making such answer. Thereupon
he proceeds, using the formula of comparison : “ So every good tree
produces good fruit, and the bad tree produces bad fruit; ” and
then, dropping formal comparison, he adds: “A good tree cannot
bring forth bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.
Every tree that does not produce good fruit is cut down and cast
into fire. Therefore (in view of these well-known facts, adduced
as illustrations, I repeat the statement made a moment ago, verse
16), from their fruits ye will know them.” It will be shown in a
subsequent chapter how all true parables are essentially similes, but
all similes are not parables. The examples of assumed comparison,
given above, though distinguished from both simile and parable
proper, contain essential elements of both.
Metaphor.
Metaphor is an implied comparison, and is of much more frequent
Metaphor de- occurrence in all languages than simile. It differs from
fined and iiius- the latter in being a briefer and more pungent form of
expression, and in turning words from their literal
meaning to a new and striking use. The passage in Hos. xiii, 8:
“I will devour them like a lion,” is a simile or formal comparison;
but Gen. xlix, 9: “A lion’s whelp is Judah,” is a metaphor. We
may compare something to the savage strength and rapacity of a
lion, or the swift flight of an eagle, or the brightness of the sun, or
the beauty of a rose, and in each case we use the words in their
literal sense. But when we say, Judah is a lion, Jonathan was an
eagle, Jehovah is a sun, my beloved one is a rose, we perceive at
once that the words lion, eagle, etc., are not used literally, but only
some notable quality or characteristic of these creatures is intended.
Hence metaphor, as the name denotes (Greek, peTa0epw, to carry
over, to transfer ), is that figure of speech in which the sense of one
word is transferred to another. This process of using words in new
constructions is constantly going on, and, as we have seen in former
chapters, the tropical sense of many words becomes at length the
only one in use. Every language is, therefore, to a great extent,
a dictionary of faded metaphors.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
25p
The sources from which scriptural metaphors are drawn are to
be looked for chiefly in the natural scenery of the lands of the
Bible, the customs and antiquities of the Orient, and the ritual
worship of the Hebrews.1 In Jer. ii, 13, we have two very expres¬
sive metaphors : “ My people have committed two evils: Examples of
they have forsaken me, a fountain of living waters, to ^etaphordra^
hew for themselves cisterns, broken cisterns, that can scenery,
hold no water.” A fountain of living waters, especially in such a
land as Palestine, is of inestimable worth ; far more valuable than
any artificial well or cistern, that can at best only catch and hold
rain water, and is liable to become broken and lose its contents.
What insane folly for a man to forsake a living fountain to hew for
himself an uncertain cistern! The ingratitude and apostasy of
Israel are strikingly characterized by the first figure, and their self-
sufficiency by the second.
In Job ix, 6, a violent earthquake is represented as Jehovah
“ causing the land to move from her place, and making her columns
tremble.” The w'hole land affected by the earthquake shock is
conceived as a building, heaved out of place, and all her pillars or
columnar supports trembling and tottering to their fall. In chapter
xxvi,’ 8, the holding of the rain in the heavens is pictured as God
(( binding up the waters in his dark cloud (ny), and the cloud (py,
cloud-covering) is not rent under them.” The clouds are conceived
as a great sheet or bag, strong enough to hold the immense weight
of waters. In Deut. xxxii, 40, Jehovah is represented as saying:
“ For I will lift up to heaven my hand, and say, living am I for¬
ever.” Here the allusion is to the ancient custom of Ancient cus-
lifting up the hand to heaven in the act of making a toms-
solemn oath. In verse 42 we have these further images : I will
make my arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour
flesh.” By these metaphors arrows are personified as living things,
intoxicated with drinking the blood of Jehovah’s slaughtered foes,
and the sword, as a ravenous beast of prey, devouring their flesh.
Many similar examples exhibit at one and the same time the Old
Testament anthropomorphisms,2 together with personification and
metaphor. .
The following strong metaphors have their basis m well-known
habits of animals : “ Issachar is an ass of bone, lying MetapllorjCai ai-
down between the double fold” (Gen. xlix, 14). He
loves rest, like a beast of burden, especially-like the
strong, bony ass, that seeks repose between the sheepfolds. “ N aph-
tali is a hind sent forth, the giver of sayings of beauty (Gen.
1 nhnv. n 246. 8 See above, p. 103.
260
PRINCIPLES OP
xlix, 21). The allusion here is specially to the elegance and beauty
of the hind, bounding away gracefully in his freedom, and denotes
in the tribe of Naphtali a taste for sayings of beauty, such as ele¬
gant songs and proverbs. As the neighbouring tribe of Zebulon
produced ready writers (Judges v, 14), so, probably, Naphtali be¬
came noted for elegant speakers. “ Benjamin is a wolf ; he shall
rend” (Gen. xlix, 27). This metaphor fitingly portrays the furious,
warlike character of the Benjamites, from whom sprang an Ehud
and a Saul. In Zech. vii, 11, mention is made of those who “re¬
fused to hearken, and gave a refractory shoulder,” that is, acted
like a refractory heifer or ox that shakes the shoulder and refuses
to accept the yoke. Comp. Neh. ix, 29 and Hos. iv, 16. In Num.
xxiv, 21, it is said of the Kenites, “Enduring is thy dwelling-place,
and set in the rock thy nest.” The secure dwellings of this tribe in
the high fastnesses of the rocky hills are conceived as the nest of
the eagle in the towering rock. Comp. Job xxxix, 27; Jer. xlix, 16;
Obad. 4 ; Hab. ii, 9.
The following metaphors are based upon practices appertaining
Metaphors to wors^ip and ritual of the Hebrews. “I will
based on He- wash my palms in innocency, I will go round about thy
brew ntuai. aRar, q Jehovah” (Psa. xxvi, 6). Here the allusion is
to the practice of the priests who were required to wash their hands
before coming near the altar to minister (Exod. xxx, 20). The
psalmist expresses his purpose to conform thoroughly to Jehovah’s
will ; he would, so to speak, offer his burnt-offerings, even as the
priest who goes about the altar on which his sacrifice is to be
offered ; and in doing so, he would be careful to conform to every
requirement. In Psa. li, 7, “ Purify me with hyssop, and I shall
become clean,” the allusion is to the ceremonial forms of purifying
the leper (Lev. xiv, 6, 7) and his house (verse 51), and the person
who had been defiled by contact with a dead body (Num. xix, 18, 19).
So also the well-known usages of the passover, the sacrifice of the
lamb, the careful removal of all leaven, and the use of unleavened
biead, lie at the basis of the following metaphorical language!
“ Purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, even as ye
are unleavened; for our passover also has been sacrificed, even
Christ; wherefore, let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor
with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened
loaves of sincerity and truth” (1 Cor. v, 7, 8). Here the metaphors
are continued until they make an allegory.
Sometimes a writer or speaker, after having used a striking
metaphor goes on to elaborate its imagery, and, by so doing, con¬
structs an allegory ; sometimes he introduces a number and variety
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
261
of images together, or, at other times, laying all figure aside, he
proceeds with plain and simple language. Thus, in the
Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says: “ Ye are the salt of mixed meta.
the earth” (Matt, v, 13). It is not difficult to grasp at pllors*
once the comparison here implied. “ The earth, the living world
of men, is like a piece of meat, which would putrefy but that the
grace of the Gospel of God, like salt, arrests the decay and purifies
and preserves it.” 1 But the Lord proceeds, adhering closely to the
imagery of salt and its power, and develops his figure into a brief
allegory : “ But if the salt have lost its savour, wherewith shall it he
salted?” Here is a most significant query. “The apostles, and in
their degree all Christians,” says Whedon, “are the substance and
body of that salt. They are the substance to which the saltness
inheres. But if the living body to which this gracious saltness in¬
heres doth lose this quality, wherewith shall the quality be restored?
The it refers to the solid salt which has lost its saltness or savour.
What, alas! shall ever resalt that savourless salt? The Christian
is the solid salt, and the grace of God is his saltness ; that grace is
the very salt of the salt. This solid salt is intended to salt the
world with; but, alas! who shall salt the salt?”2 But immediately
after this elaborated figure, another and different metaphor is in¬
troduced, and carried forward with still greater detail. “Ye are
the light of the world. A city set on a mountain cannot be hid;
nor do they light a lamp and put it under the modius, but on the
stand, and it shines for all that are in the house. Even so let your
light shine” (Matt, v, 14-16). Here a variety of images is pre¬
sented to the mind ; a light, a city on a mountain, a lamp, a lamp-
stand, and a Roman modius or peck measure. But through all
these varying images runs the main figure of a light designed to
send its rays afar, and illumine all within its range. A metaphor
thus extended always becomes, strictly speaking, an allegory. In
Matt, vii, 7, we have three metaphors introduced in a single verse.
“Ask and it shall be given you; seek and ye shall find ; knock and
it shall be opened unto you.” First, we have the image of a sup¬
pliant, making a request before a superior; next, of one who is in
search for some goodly pearl or treasure (comp. Matt, xiii, 45, 46) ;
and, finally, of one who is knocking at a door for admission. The
three figures are so well related that they produce no confusion, but
rather serve to strengthen one another. So Paul uses with good
effect a twofold metaphor in Eph. iii, 18, where he prays “that
Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith, being rooted and
grounded in love.” Here is the figure of a tree striking its roots
1 Whedon, Commentary, in loco. 2 Ibid.
262
PRINCIPLES OF
into the soil, and of a building based upon a deep and strong
foundation.1 But these figures are accompanied both before and
after with a style of language of the most simple and practical
character, and not designed to elaborate or even adhere to the
imagery suggested by the metaphors.
Sometimes the salient point of allusion in a metaphor may be a
uncertain met- matter °f doubt or uncertainty. The opening words of
ftphoricai aiiu- Deborah’s song (Judg. v, 2) have long puzzled transla¬
tors and exegetes. The English version, following sub¬
stantially the Syriac and Arabic, renders the Hebre w nijHB 1MD3,
“for the avenging of Israel.” The Septuagint (Alex. Codex) has,
“for the leading of the leaders,” but seems to have been governed by
the resemblance of the word nijna to the official name of Egyptian
monarchs rijnQ, Pharaoh. Neither of these translations has any
certain support in Plebrew usage. The noun JHS) occurs in the sing¬
ular but twice (Num. vi, 5; Ezek. xliv, 20), and in both places
means a lock of hair. The plural form of the word, nijna, occurs
only here and in Deut. xxxii, 42, and in both places would seem to
mean, most legitimately, locks of hair , or flowing locks. And why
should it be thought to mean any thing else ? So far from being
incongruous, it best suits the imagery of the immediate context in
Deut. xxxii, 42. Jehovah there says: “I will make my arrows
drunk with blood (Heb. from blood), and my sword shall de¬
vour flesh with the blood (or, from the blood) of slain and of cap¬
tives, from the head of hairy locks of the enemy ” — that is, from
the blood of the hairy heads of the enemies. And so at the be¬
ginning of Deborah’s song we may understand a bold metaphor,
1 Meyer observes : “ Paul, in the vivacity of his imagination, conceives to himself
the congregation of his readers as a plant (comp. Matt, xiii, 3), perhaps a tree (Matt,
vii, 17), and at the same time as a building .” Critical Com. on Ephesians, in loco.
The perfect participles,” says Braune, “ denote a state in which Paul’s readers are
and continue to be, which is the presupposition in order that they may be able to
know. . . . They mark that a profoundly penetrating life (Ipfafagevni) and a well
grounded, permanent character (TE&egeTuogEvoi) are necessary. The double figure
strengthens the notion of the relation to love ; this latter (ev iiyimri) is made promi¬
nent by being placed first. In marks love as the soil in which they are rooted, and
as the foundation on which they are grounded. This implies moreover that it is not
their own love which is referred to, but one which corresponds with the soil afforded
to the tree, the foundation given to the house ; and this would undoubtedly be, in ac¬
cordance with the context, the love of Christ, were not all closer definition wanting,
even the article. Accordingly, this substantive rendered general by the absence of
the article corresponds with the verbal idea: in loving, i. e., in that love, which is
first God’s in Christ, and then that of men who became Christians, who are’ rooted in
him and grounded on him through faith.”. Commentary on Ephesians (Lance’s Bible-
work), in loco.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
2G3
^In the loosing of locks in Israel; ” for the primary meaning of the
verb SH3 is everywhere that of letting something loose, and when
used of locks of hair would naturally denote the loosing of the
hair from all artificial coverings and restraint, and leaving it to
wave wildly, as was done in the case of a Nazarite, The metaphor
of the passage would thus be an allusion to the unrestrained growth
of the locks of those who took upon themselves the vows of a
Nazarite. And this view of the passage is corroborated by the
next line of the parallelism, “ In the free self-offering of the peo¬
ple. The people had, so to speak, by this act of consecration,
made themselves free-will offerings. Nothing, therefore, could be
more striking and impressive than these metaphorical allusions at
the opening of this hymn:
In 1 the loosing of locks in Israel, ,
In the free self-offering of the people,
Praise Jehovah!
In Psa. xlv, 1, “ My heart boils up with a goodly word,” it is
difficult to determine whether the allusion is to an overflowing
fountain, or to a boiling pot. The primary idea, according to
Gesenius, lies in the noise of water boiling or bubbling, and as the
word occurs nowhere else, but its derivative, Dl^rTO, denotes in
Lev. ii, V; vii, 9, a pot or vessel used both for boiling and frying,
it is perhaps safer to say that the allusion in the metaphor of Psa.
xlv, i, is to a boiling pot. The heart of the Psalmist was hot with a
holy fervour, and, like the boiling oil of the vessel in which the
meat-offering was prepared, it seethed and bubbled in the rapture
of exulting song.
The exact point of the allusion in the words, “buried wiili him
through baptism into death” (Rom. vi, 4), and “buried Buried with
with him in baptism” (Col. ii, 12), has been disputed, baptism^into
The advocates of immersion insist that there is an allu- death,
sion to the mode in which the rite of water baptism was performed,
and most interpreters have acknowledged that such an allusion is
in the word. The immersion of the candidate was thought of as a
burial in the water. But the context in both passages goes to show
that the great thought of the apostle was that of the believer’s
death unto sin. Thus, in Romans, “ Are ye ignorant that as many
1 The preposition 3, in, points out the condition of the people in which they con¬
quered and sang. The song is the people’s consecration hymn, and praises God for
the prosperous and successful issue with which he has crowned their vows. Cassel’a
Commentary on Judges (Lange’s Biblework), in loco. Comp. Whedon’s Old Testament
Commentary, in loco. *
264
PRINCIPLES OF
of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his
death? We were buried therefore with him through baptism into
death. ... We have become united with the likeness of his death
(ver. 5). . . . Our old man was crucified with him (ver. 6). . . . We
died with Christ (ver. 8). . . . Even so consider ye yourselves to
be dead unto sin, but alive unto God in Christ Jesus” (ver. 11).
Now, while the word buried with (avv^anrco) would naturally ac¬
cord with the idea of an immersion into water, the main thought
is the deadness unto sin , attained through a union with Christ in
the likeness of his death. The imagery does not depend on the mode
of Christ’s execution or of his burial, much less on the manner
in which baptism was administered, but on the similitude of his
death (t<5 b[ioi(0[iari rov Zavarov avrov , ver. 5) considered as an ac¬
complished fact. The baptism is into death, , not into water; and
whether the outward rite were performed by sprinkling, or pour¬
ing, or immersion, it would have been equally true in either case,
that they were “ buried with him through the baptism into the
death.” Or he might have said, “We were crucified with him
through baptism into death;” and then as now it would have been
the end accomplished, the death, not the mode of the baptism, which
is made prominent. In the briefer form of expression in Col. ii, 12,
it is written, simply, “ having been buried with him in baptism.”
Here, however, the context shows that the leading thought is the
same as in Rom. vi, 3-11. The burial in baptism (ev rc5 (iairriGiiart ,
in the matter of baptism) figured “ the putting off of the body of
the flesh;” that is, the utter stripping off and casting aside the old
carnal nature. The burial is not to be thought of as a mode of
putting a corpse in a grave or sepulchre, but as indicating that the
body of sin is truly dead. Having thus clearly defined the real
point of the allusion it need not be denied or disputed that the
figure also may include, incidentally, a reference to the practice of
immersion. But, as Eadie observes, “ Whatever may be otherwise
said in favour of immersion, it is plain that here the burial is
wholly ideal. Believers are buried in baptism, but even in immer¬
sion they do not go through a process having any resemblance to
the burial and resurrection of Christ.” 1 To maintain from such a
metaphorical allusion, where the process and mode of burial are not
in point at all, that a burial into, and a resurrection from, water,
are essential to valid baptism, would seem like an extravagance of
dogmatism.
1 Commentary on the Greek Text of Colossians, in loSo.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
265
CHAPTER XII.
FABLES, RIDDLES, AND ENIGMAS.
Passing now from the more common figures of speech, we come to
those peculiar tropical methods of conveying ideas and
1 . 11- ,,11 . . More promi-
lmpressmg truths, which hold a special prominence in nent scriptural
the Holy Scriptures. These are known as fables, rid- tropes‘
dies, enigmas, allegories, parables, proverbs, types, and symbols.
In order to appreciate and properly interpret these special forms
of thought, a clear understanding of the more common rhetorical
figures treated in the previous chapters is altogether necessary.
For the parable will be found to correspond with the simile, the
allegory with the metaphor, and other analogies will be traceable
in other figures. A scientific analysis and treatment of these more
prominent tropes of Scripture will require us to distinguish and dis¬
criminate between some things which in popular speech are fre¬
quently confounded. Even in the Scripture itself the proverb, the
parable, and the allegory are not formally distinguished. In the
Old Testament the word hpft is applied alike to the proverbs of
Solomon (Prov. i, 1; x, 1; xxv, 1), the oracles of Balaam (Num.
xxiii, V; xxiv, 8), the addresses of Job (Job xxvii, 1; xxix, l), the
taunting speech against the King of Babylon (in Isa. xiv, 4, If.),
and other prophecies (Micah ii, 4; Hab. ii, 6). In the New Testa¬
ment the word nagapohri, parable, is applied not only to what are
admitted on all hands to be parables proper, but also to proverb
(Luke iv, 23), and symbol (Heb. ix, 9), and type (Heb. xi, 19).
John does not use the word TcapaPohrj at all, but calls the allegory
of the good shepherd in chap, x, 6, a tt aQOL[iLa, which word Peter
uses in the sense of a proverb or byword (2 Peter ii, 22). The
word allegory occurs but once (Gal. iv, 24), and then in verbal
form (akkrjyopovfjieva) to denote the allegorizing process by which
certain Old Testament facts might be made to typify Gospel truths.
Lowest of these special figures, in dignity and aim, is the fable.
It consists essentially in this, that individuals of the characteristics
brute creation, and of animate and inanimate nature, are of tbe fable*
introduced into the imagery as if possessed with reason and speech,
and are represented as acting and talking contrary to the laws of
their being. There is a conspicuous element of unreality about the
266
PRINCIPLES OF
whole machinery of fables, and yet the moral intended to be set
forth is usually so manifest that no difficulty is felt in understand¬
ing it.
The oldest fable of which we have any trace is that of Jotham,
recorded in Judg. ix, 7-20. The trees are represented
jotham’s fable. ag forth t0 cpoose an(j anoint a king. They in¬
vite the olive, the fig-tree, and the vine to come and reign over
them, but these all decline, and urge that their own natural purpose
and products require all their care. Then the trees invite the
bramble, which does not refuse, but, in biting irony, insists that all
the trees shall come and take refuge under its shadow! Let the
olive-tree, and the fig-tree, and the vine come under the protecting
shade of the briar ! But if not, it is significantly added, “ Let fire go
forth from the bramble and devour the cedars of Lebanon.” I he
miserable, worthless bramble, utterly unfit to shade even the small¬
est shrub, might, nevertheless, well serve to kindle a fire that would
quickly devour the noblest of trees. So Jotham, in giving an im¬
mediate application of his fable, predicts that the weak and worth¬
less Abimelech, whom the men of Shechem had been so fast to
make king over them, would prove an accursed torch to burn their
noblest leaders. All this imagery of trees walking and talking is
at once seen to be purely fanciful. It has no foundation in fact,
and yet it presents a vivid and impressive picture of the political
follies of mankind in accepting the leadership of such worthless
characters as Abimelech.
Another fable, quite similar to that of Jotham, is found in
2 Kings xiv, 9, where Jehoash, the King of Israel, an-
Jehoash & fable. gwerg warpke challenge of Amaziah, King of Ju¬
dah, by the following short and pungent npologue: “The thorn-
bush which is in Lebanon sent to the cedar which is in Lebanon,
saying, Give thy daughter to my son for a wife; and there passed
over a beast of the field which was in Lebanon, and trampled down
the thornbush.” This fable embodies a most contemptuous re¬
sponse to Amaziah, intimating that his pride of heart and self-con¬
ceit were moving him to attempt things far beyond his proper
sphere. The beast trampling down the thornbush intimates that a
passing incident, which could have no effect on a cedar of Lebanon,
might easily destroy the briar. Jehoash does not proudly boast
that he himself will come forth, and by his military forces crush
Amaziah; but suggests that a passing judgment, an incidental
circumstance, would be sufficient for that purpose, and it were
therefore better for the presumptuous King of Judah to remain at
home in his proper place.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
267
The apologues of Jotliam and Jehoash are the only proper fables
that appear in the Bible. In the interpretation of these Fabulous lma_
we should guard against pressing the imagery too far. gery not to be
We are not to suppose that every word and allusion fntheilite^rS
has some special meaning. In the apologue of Jehoash totion*
we are not to say that the thornbush was Amaziah, and the cedar
Jehoash, and the wild beast the warriors of the latter; and yet, by
the contrast between the cedar and the thornbush, the kins? of
Israel would, doubtless, impress his contempt for Amaziah upon
the latter’s mind, and thus seek to humiliate his pride. Neither
are we to suppose that Amaziah had asked Jehoash to give his
daughter in marriage to his son ; nor that “ Israel might properly
be regarded as Jehoash’s daughter, and Judah as Amaziah’s son”
(Thenius), as if Amaziah had formally demanded, as Josephus
states, (Ant. ix, 9, 2), a union of the two kingdoms. Nor in the
fable of Jotliam are we, like some of the ancient interpreters, to
understand by the olive, the fig-tree, and the vine, the three great
judges that had preceded Abimelech, viz., Othniel, Deborah, and
Gideon, nor seek for hidden meanings and thrusts in such words as
anoint , reign over us, and shadow. We should always keep in
mind that it is one distinguishing feature of fables that they are
not exact parallels of those things to which they are designed to be
applied. They are based on imaginary actions of irrational crea¬
tures, or inanimate things, and can therefore never be true to
actual life.
We should also note how completely the spirit and aim of the
fable accords with irony, sarcasm, and ridicule. Hence its special
adaptation to expose the follies and vices of men. “ It is essential¬
ly of the earth,” says Trench, “and never lifts itself above the
earth. It never has a higher aim than to inculcate maxims of pru¬
dential morality, industry, caution, foresight ; and these it will some¬
times recommend even at the expense of the higher self-forgetting
virtues. The fable just reaches that pitch of morality which the
world will understand and approve.” 1 But this able and excellent
wiiter goes, as we think, too far when he says that the fable has no
proper place in the Scripture, “ and, in the nature of things, could
have none, for the purpose of Scripture excludes it.” The fables
noticed above are a part of the Scripture which is received as God-
inspired (2 Tim. iii, 16); and though it is not God that speaks
through them, but men occupying an earthly standpoint, that fact
does not make good the assertion that such fables have no tiue
place in Scripture. For the teachings of Scripture move in the
1 Notes on the Parables, p. 10.
268
PRINCIPLES OF
realm of earthly life and human thought as well as in a higher and
holier element, and sarcasm and caustic rebukes find a place on the
sacred page. The record of Adam’s naming the beasts and fowls
that were brought to him in Eden (Gen. ii, 19) suggests that their
qualities and habits impressed his mind with significant analogies.
Many of the most useful proverbs are abbreviated fables (Prov.
vi, 6; xxx, 15, 25-28). Though the fable moves in the earthly ele¬
ment of prudential morality, even that element may be pervaded
and taken possession of by the divine wisdom.1
The riddle differs from the fable in being designed to puzzle and
Characteristics perplex the hearer. It is purposely obscure in order to
Of the riddle, test the sharpness and penetration of those who attempt
to solve it. The Hebrew word for riddle (»Tjpn) is from a root which
means to twist , or tie a knot, and is used of any dark and intricate
saying, which requires peculiar skill and insight to unravel. The
queen of Sheba made a journey to Solomon’s court to test him with
riddles (1 Kings x, 1). It is declared, at the beginning of the Book
of the Proverbs, that it is the part of true wisdom “ to understand
a proverb and an enigma (n^JD) ; words of the wise and their
riddles” (Prov. i, 6). The psalmist says, “I will incline my ear to
a proverb; I will open on a harp my riddle” (Psa. xlix, 4). “I
will open my mouth in a proverb ; I will pour forth riddles of old ”
(lxxviii, 2). Riddles, therefore, dark sayings, enigmas, which con¬
ceal thought, and, at the same time, incite the inquiring mind to
search for their hidden meanings, have a place in the Scripture.
Samson’s celebrated riddle is in the form of a Hebrew couplet
(J udges xiv, 1 4) :
Out of the eater came forth food,
And out of strength came forth sweetness.
The clue to this riddle is furnished in the incidents related in
Samson’s rid- verses 8 and 9. Out of the carcass of a devouring
^ beast came the food of which both Samson and his
parents had eaten; and out of that which had been the embodi¬
ment of strength, came forth the sweet honey, which the bees had
deposited therein. But Samson’s companions, and even his parents,
were not acquainted with these facts. Their ignorance, however,
1 The profound significance of Jotham’s fable is declared by Cassel to be inexhaust¬
ible. “ Its truth is of perpetual recurrence. More than once was Israel in the posi¬
tion of the Shechemites ; then, especially, when he whose kingdom is not of this world,
refused to be a king. Then, too, Herod and Pilate became friends. The thornbush
seemed to be king when it encircled the head of the Crucified. But Israel experienced
what is here denounced : a fire went forth and consumed city and people, temple and
fortress.” Cassel’s Commentary on Judges (Lange’s Biblework), in loco.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
269
is no ground for saying that therefore Samson’s riddle was no
proper riddle at all. “ The ingenuity of the riddle,” says Cassel,
“ consists precisely in this, that the ambiguity both of its language
and contents can be turned in every direction, and thus conceals the
answer. It is like a knot whose right end cannot be found. . . .
Samson’s problem distinguishes itself only by its peculiar ingenuity.
It is short and simple, and its words are used in their natural signi¬
fication. It is so clear as to be obscure. It is not properly liable
to the objection that it refers to an historical act which no one could
know. The act was one which was common in that country. Its
turning point, with reference to the riddle was, not that it was an
incident of Samson’s personal history, but that its occurrence in
general was not impossible.” 1
A notable example of riddle in the New Testament is that of the
mystic number of the beast propounded in Rev. xiii, 18. The number of
“ Here is wisdom. Let him that has understanding the beast-
reckon the number of the beast, for it is a man’s number ; and his
number is six hundred sixty-six.” Another very ancient reading,
but probably the error of a copyist, makes the number six hundred
and fourteen. This riddle has perplexed critics and interpreters
through all the ages since the Apocalypse was written.2 The num¬
ber of a man would most naturally mean the numerical value of the
letters which compose some man’s name, and the two names which
have found most favour in the solution of this problem are the
Greek A areivog, and the Hebrew “iDp JVU. Either of these names
makes up the required number, and one or the other will be adopt¬
ed according to one’s interpretation of the symbolical beast in
question.
Some of the sayings of the wise in the Book of Proverbs seem to
have been made purposely obscure. Who shall decide
r 1 J . mi i * i Dark proverbs,
the real meaning of Prov. xxvi, 10? The English ver¬
sion renders : “ The great God that formed all things both reward¬
ed the fool, and rewarded transgressors.” But the margin gives
us an alternative reading: “ A great man grieved all, and he hireth
the fool, he hireth also transgressors.” Others translate: “As the
archer that wounded every one, so is he that hireth the fool, and
he that hireth the passer-by.” Others : “ An arrow that woundeth
every one is he who hireth a fool and he who hireth vagrants.”
Others: “A master forms all things himself, but he that hires a
fool is as he that hires vagrants.” And the Hebrew words of the
1 Commentary on Judges, in loco.
2 For the various conjectures see the leading Commentaries on the passage, espe¬
cially Stuart, Elliott, and Diisterdieck.
270
PRINCIPLES OF
original are susceptible of still other renderings. A proverb couched
in words susceptible of so many different meanings may well be
called a riddle or “ dark saying.” It was probably designed to
puzzle, and the variety of meanings attaching to its words was a
reason with the author for choosing just those words.
One of the “ dark sayings of old ” is the poetic fragment ascribed
to Lamech (Gen. iv, 23, 24), which may be closely rendered thus:
Adah and Zillah, hear my voice;
Wives of Lamech, listen to my saying;
For a man have I slain for my wound,
And a child for my bruise.
For sevenfold avenged should Cain be,
And Lamech seventy and seven.
The obscurity attaching to this song arises probably from our
ignorance of the circumstances which called it forth. Some have
supposed that Lamech was smitten with remorse over
Lamech ssong. murder of a young man, and these words are his
lamentation. Others suppose he had killed a man in self-defense,
or in retaliation for wounds received. Others make the song a tri¬
umphant exultation over Tubal-cain’s invention of brass and iron
weapons, and, translating the verb as a future “I will slay,” regard
the utterance as a pompous threat. Verse 24 is then understood
as a blasphemous boast that he could now avenge his own wrongs
ten times more thoroughly than God would avenge the slaying of
Cain.1 Possibly the whole song was originally intended as a riddle,
and was as perplexing to Lamech’s wives as to modern expositors.
It would be well to make a formal distinction between the riddle
, and the enigma, and apply the former term to such in-
igma should be tricate sayings as deal essentially with earthly things,
distinguished. an(^ are eSpeciaRy designed to exercise human ingenuity
and shrewdness. Such were Samson’s riddle, and the puzzling
questions put to Solomon by the Queen of Sheba, the' number of
the beast, and proverbs like that noticed above (Prov. xxvi, 10).
Enigmas, on the other hand, would be the more fitting name for
those mystic utterances which serve both to conceal and enhance
some deep and sacred thought. But the words have been so long
used interchangeably of both classes of dark sayings that we can
scarcely expect to change from such indiscriminate usage.
The word enigma (alviyga) occurs but once (1 Cor. xiii, 12) in the
New Testament, but in the Septuagint it is employed as the Greek
equivalent of the Hebrew “Tn. In 1 Cor. xiii, 12, it is used to
1 For a full synopsis of the various interpretations of this song, see M’Clintock and
Strong’s Cyclopaedia, article Lamech.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
271
indicate the dim and imperfect manner in which in this life we ap¬
prehend heavenly and eternal things: “For we see now through a
mirror in enigma.” Most expositors take the words in enigma ad¬
verbially, in the sense of darkly , dimly , in an enigmatical way.
But alviypa ,” says Meyer, “is a dark saying , and the idea of the
saying should as little be lost here as in Num. xii, 8. Luther ren¬
ders rightly: in a dark word / which, however, should be explained
more precisely as by means of an enigmatic word, whereby is meant
the word of the Gospel revelation, which capacitates for the seeing
(PkeTTStv) in question, however imperfect it be, and is its medium to
us. It is alvcyfia, inasmuch as it affords to us no full clearness of
light upon God’s decrees, ways of salvation, etc., but keeps its con¬
tents sometimes in greater, sometimes in a less, degree (Rom. xi, 33;
1 Cor. ii, 9) concealed, bound up in images, similitudes, types, and
the like forms of human limitation and human speech, and conse¬
quently is for us of a mysterious and enigmatic nature, standing in
need of a future Xvotg (solution), and vouchsafing mcrnq (faith), in¬
deed, but not etdog (appearance, 2 Cor. v, 7).”1
There is an enigmatical element in our Lord’s discourse with
Nicodemus, John iii, 1-13. The profound lesson con- Enigmatical
tained in the words of verse 3: “Except a man be born words" to1 NicS
from above he cannot see the kingdom of God,” per- demus.
plexed and confounded the Jewish ruler. Deep in his heart the
Lord, who “knew what was in man” (ii, 25), discerned his spir¬
itual need. His thoughts were too much upon the outward, the
visible, the fleshly. The miracles of Jesus had made a deep im¬
pression, and he would inquire of the great wonder-worker as of a
divinely commissioned teacher. Jesus stops all his compliments,
and surprises him with a mysterious word, which seems equivalent
to saying: Do not now talk about my works, or of whence I came;
turn your thoughts upon your inner self. What you need is not
new knowledge , but new life ; and that life can be had only by an¬
other birth. And when Nicodemus uttered his surprise and won¬
der, he was rebuked by the reflection, “ Art thou the teacher of
Israel, and knowest not these things?” (ver. 10). Had not the
psalmist prayed, “ Create in me a clean heart, O God? ” (Psa. Ii, 10).
Had not the law and the prophets spoken of a divine circumcision
of the heart? (Deut. xxx, 6; Jer. iv, 4; Ezek. xi, 19). Why then
should such a man as Nicodemus express surprise at these deep
sayings of the Lord? Simply because his heart-life and spiritual
discernment were unable then to apprehend “the things of the
Spirit of G.od” (1 Cor. ii, 14). They were as a riddle to him.
1 Meyer on Corinthians, in loco.
272
PRINCIPLES OP
The same style of enigmatical discourse appears in Jesus’ say¬
ings in the synagogue at Capernaum (John vi, 53-59); also in his
first words to the woman of Samaria (John iv, 10-15), and in his
response to the disciples when they returned and “ wondered that
he was talking with a woman,” and asked him to eat of the food
they had procured (John iv, 32-38). His reply, in this last case,
was, “ I have food to eat which ye do not know.” They mis¬
understood him, as did Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman.
“What wonder,” says Augustine, “if that woman did not under¬
stand water ? Behold, the disciples do not yet understand food.” 1
They wondered whether any one had brought him something to
eat during their absence, and then Jesus spoke more plainly: “My
food is that (iva, indicating conscious aim and purpose) I shall do
the will of him that sent me, and shall complete his work.” His
success with the Samaritan woman was to him better food than any
bodily sustenance, for it elevated his soul into the holy conviction
and assurance that he should successfully accomplish the whole of
that work for which he came into the world. And then he pro¬
ceeds, adhering still to the tone and style of intermingled enigma
and allegory: “Do not ye say that there is yet a four-month, and
the harvest comes? Behold, I say unto you, Lift up your eyes and
look on the fields, that they are wdiite unto harvest. Already 2 he
that reaps is receiving reward and gathering fruit into ( eig , as into
a garner) life eternal, that he who sows and he who reaps may re¬
joice together.” The winning of that one Samaritan convert opens
to Jesus’ prophetic soul the great Gospel harvest of the near future,
and he speaks of it as already at hand. Whether we regard the
saying, “ There is yet a four-month, and the harvest comes,” as a
proverb (Lightfoot, Tholuck, Lucke, De Wette, Stier), equivalent
to, There is a space of four months between seedtime and harvest,
or understand that the neighbouring grain fields were just sown, or
just now green with the young tender grain (Meyer and many),
and over them many Samaritans appeared coming to him (ver. 30),
the great thought is still the same, and emphasizes the actual joy
of J esus in that hour of ingathering. Sower and reaper were to¬
gether there and then, but the disciples could scarcely take in the
full import of Jesus’ glowing words. “The disciples saw no har¬
vest field; they said and they thought assuredly, There must be at
least four months yet ! But the Lord sets before them a mystery
1 In Joannis Evangelium Tractatus xv, 31.
2 Most of the oldest and best manuscript authorities omit nai after r/6jj, and many
of the best critics join rjdrj with what follows. So Schulz, Tischendorf, Godet, and
Westcott and Hort.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
273
and an enigma, and thereby would teach them to lift up aright the
eyes of their faith. J3ehold, I say unto you, I have now been sow¬
ing the word, and already behold a sudden harvest upspringing and
ready. Should not this be my meat and my joy? O ye, my reap¬
ers, rejoice together with me, the sower, and forget ye also to
eat ! ” 1
The words of Jesus in Luke xxii, 36, are an enigma. As he was
about to go out to Gethsemane he discerned that the
hour of peril was at hand. He reminded his disciples sword in Luke
of the time when he sent them forth without purse, xxii’ 36'
wallet, or shoes (Luke ix, 1-6), and drew from them the acknowl¬
edgement that they had then lacked nothing. “ But now,” said he,
“he that has a purse, let him take it, and likewise a wallet; and he
that has not, let him sell his mantle, and buy a sword.” He would
impress them with the feeling that the time of fearful conflict and
exposure was now imminent. They must expect to be assailed,
and should be prepared for all righteous self-defense. They would
see times when a sword would be worth more to them than a man¬
tle. But our Lord, evidently, did not mean that they should, liter¬
ally, arm themselves with the weapons of a carnal warfare, and use
the sword to propagate his cause (Matt, xxvi, 52; John xviii, 36).
He would significantly warn them of the coming bitter conflict and
opposition they must meet. The world would be against them, and
assail them in many a hostile form, and they should therefore pre¬
pare for self-defense and manly encounter. It is not the sword of
the Spirit (Eph. vi, 17) of which the Lord here speaks, but the
sword as the symbol of that warlike heroism, that bold and fearless
confession, and that inflexible purpose to maintain the truth, which
would soon be a duty and a necessity on the part of the disciples
in order to defend their faith. But the disciples misunderstood
these enigmatical words, and spoke of two swords which they had
with them! Jesus paused not to explain, and broke off that con¬
versation “ in the tone of one who is conscious that others would
not yet understand him, and who, therefore, holds further speech
unprofitable.” 2 His laconic answer, it is enough , was “a gentle
turning aside of further discussion, with a touch of sorrowful
irony. More than your two swords ye need not! ” 3
A similar enigma appears in John xxi, 18, where Jesus says to
Simon Peter: “When thou wast young thou girdedst Enigmatic<il
thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest; but when words to Peter,
thou shalt be old another shall gird thee and carry thee John xxl’ 18'
1 Stier, Words of Jesus, in loco. 2 Yan Oosterzee’s Commentary on Luke
(Lange’s Biblework), in loco. 3 Meyer, in loco.
18
274
PRINCIPLES OF
whither thou wouldest not.” The writer immediately adds that
Jesus thereby signified ( arjf.ia'iV(ov ) “by what death he should glorify
God.” But it is scarcely probable that Peter then fully compre¬
hended the saying. Comp, also John ii, 19.
The prophetic picture of the two eagles in Ezek. xvii, 2-10, is a
mixture of enigma (iTTn) and fable (?&$). It is fabu-
The two eagles „ . v T ^
of Ezek. xvii, lous so far as it represents the eagles as acting with
1 10’ human intelligence and will, but, aside from this, its
imagery belongs rather to the sphere of prophetic symbols. Alto¬
gether, it is an enigma of high prophetic character, a “ dark say¬
ing,” in which the real meaning is concealed behind typical images.
In its interpretation we need to take the whole chapter together,
and we observe that it has three distinct parts: (1) The enigma
(verses 1-10); (2) its interpretation (11-21); (3) a Messianic proph¬
ecy based upon the foregoing imagery (22-24). The great eagle
represents the king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar. The “ great
wings, with long pinions, full of feathers of many colours” (ver. 3),
altogether furnish a striking figure of majesty, rapidity of move¬
ment, and splendour of regal power. Most expositors explain the
great wings as denoting the wide dominion of this eagle; the long
pinions as the extent and energy of his military power; the fulness
of feathers to the multitude of subjects; and the many colours to the
diversity of their nations, languages, and customs. But the tracing
of such special allusions in the natural appendages of the eagle is
of doubtful worth, and should not be made prominent. It is better
to understand in a more general way the strength, rapidity, and
glory of Nebuchadnezzar. Lebanon is mentioned because of its
being the natural home of the cedar, but it here represents J erusa-
lem (ver. 12), which was the home and seat of the royal seed of
Judah. The leafy crown and topmost shoots of the cedar are the
king and princes of Judah whom Nebuchadnezzar carried away to
Babylon (2 Kings xxiv, 14, 15). Babylon is here called, enigmat¬
ically, “ a land of Canaan,” because its commerce and its diplomacy
had made it “ a city of merchants.” Its self-seeking spirit of policy
and trade made it a land of Canaan (Eng. Ver., “traftic”).
And now the figure changes. The eagle “took of the seed of
the land,” of the same land where the cedar grew, “ and put it in
a field of seed” (ver. 5) where it had every chance to grow. Nay,
he took it upon many waters as one would plant a willow; that is,
with the care and foresight that one would exercise in setting a
willow in a well-watered soil in which alone it can flourish. But
this “ seed of the land ” was not the seed of a willow, but of a
vine, and it “ sprouted and became a spreading vine of low stature; ”
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
2W
and it was the plan of the eagle that this lowly vine should “ turn
its branches toward him, and its roots under him” (ver. 6). The
“ seed of the land ” (ver. 5) was the royal seed of the kingdom of
Judah (ver. 13), Zedekiah, whom Nebuchadnezzar made king in
Jerusalem after the capture of Jehoiachin (2 Kings xxiv, 17).
The other great eagle was the king of Egypt, less mighty and
glorious than the other. Toward this second eagle the vine turned
her roots and sent forth her branches (ver. 7). The impotent but
rebellious Zedekiah “ sent his messengers to Egypt ” for horses and
people to help him against Nebuchadnezzar (ver. 15). But it was
all in vain. He who broke his covenant and despised his oath
(ver. 18) could not prosper; it required no great arm or many peo¬
ple to uproot and destroy such a feeble vine. The eagle of Egypt
was powerless to help, and the Chaldsean forces, like a destructive
east wind (ver. 10), utterly withered it away. All this is brought
out forcibly in the solemn words of the “oracle of the Lord Jeho¬
vah,” verses 16-21.
Thus far the imagery has been a mixture of fable and symbol,1
but with verse 22 the prophet enters a higher plane of prophecy.
The eagles drop out of view entirely, and Jehovah himself takes
from the leafy crown of the high cedar a tender shoot (comp. Isa.
xi, 1 ; liii, 2) and plants it upon the lofty mountain of Israel, where
it becomes a glorious cedar to shelter and shade “ every bird of
every wing.” This is a noble prophecy of the Messiah, springing
from the stock of Judah, and developing from the holy “mountain
of the house of Jehovah ” (Micah iv, 1, 2) a kingdom of marvellous
growth and of gracious protection to all who may seek its shelter.
We should note especially how the Messianic prophecy here leaves
the realm of fable and takes on the style of allegory and parable.
Comp. Matt, xiii, 31, 32.
1 Schroder observes that the mixed figure here used by Ezekiel goes far beyond
mere popular illustration, and must not “ be explained away from the aesthetic stand¬
point, as merely another rhetorical garb for the thought. As in the parable the em¬
blematic form preponderates over the thought, so also here. What the prophet is to
say tc Israel is said by the whole of that mighty array of figurative expression, for
which the animal and vegetable worlds furnish the figures. But the eagle does what
eagles otherwise never do ; and what is planted as a willow grows as a vine ; and the
vine is represented as falling in love with the other eagle. The contradictory char¬
acter of such a representation, and the fact that in the difficulties to be solved
(ver. 9, sq.) the comparison comes to a stand, and the closing Messianic portion in
which the whole culminates, convert the parable into a riddle. A trace of irony and
the moral tendency, such as belong to the fable, are not wanting.” Commentary on
Ezekiel (in Lange’s Biblework), in loco.
276
PRINCIPLES OF
CHAPTER XIII.
INTERPRETATION OP PARABLES.
Among the figurative forms of scriptural speech the parable has a
notable pre-eminence. We find a number of examples
of parabolic in the Old Testament, and the esteem in which this
teaching. m0(je of teaching was held by the ancient Jews is ap¬
parent from the following words of the son of Sirach:
He who gives his soul and exercises his mind in the law of the
Most High
Will seek out the wisdom of the ancients,
And will be occupied with prophecies.
He will observe the utterances of men of fame,
And will enter with them into the twists (orpofalg) of parables.
He will seek out the hidden things of proverbs,
And busy himself with the enigmas of parables.1
Parables are especially worthy of our study, inasmuch as they were
the chosen methods by which our Lord set forth many revelations
of his heavenly kingdom. They were also employed by the great
rabbis who were contemporary with Jesus, and they frequently ap¬
pear in the Talmud and other Jewish books. Among all the orien¬
tal peoples they appear to have been a favourite form of conveying
moral instruction, and find a place in the literature of most nations.
The word parable is derived from the Greek verb napapaXAu), to
The parable de- throw or place by the side of “ and carries the idea of
flned- placing one thing by the side of another for the pur¬
pose of comparison. The word has been somewhat vaguely used,
as we have seen above,2 to represent the Hebrew and to desig¬
nate proverbs, types, and symbols (as in Luke iv, 23; Heb. ix, 9;
xi, 19). But, strictly speaking, the parable belongs to a style of
figurative speech which constitutes a class of its own. It is essen¬
tially a comparison, or simile, and yet all similes are not parables.
The simile may appropriate a comparison from any kind or class of
objects, whether real or imaginary. The parable is limited in its
range, and confined to that which is real. Its imagery always em¬
bodies a narrative which is true to the facts and experiences of hu¬
man life. It makes no use, like the fable, of talking birds and
1 Ecclesiasticus xxxix, 1-3. 2 See above on p. 265.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
277
beasts, or of trees in council. Like the riddle and enigma, it may
serve to conceal a truth from those who have not spiritual pene¬
tration to perceive it under its figurative form; hut its narrative
style, and the formal comparison always announced or assumed,
differentiate it clearly from all classes of knotty sayings which are
designed mainly to puzzle and confuse. The parable, when once
understood, unfolds and illustrates the mysteries of the kingdom of
heaven. The enigma may embody profound truths, and make
much use of metaphor, but it never, like the parable, forms a nar¬
rative, or assumes to make a formal comparison. The parable and
the allegory come nearer together, so that, indeed, parables have
been defined as “historical allegories;” 1 but they differ from each
other in substantially the same way as simile differs from meta¬
phor. The parable is essentially a formal comparison, and requires
its interpreter to go beyond its own narrative to bring in its mean¬
ing; the allegory is an extended metaphor, and contains its inter¬
pretation within itself. The parable, therefore, stands apart by it¬
self as a mode and style of figurative speech. It moves in an
element of sober earnestness, never transgressing in its imagery
the limits of probability, or of what might be actual fact. It may
tacitly take up within itself essential elements of enigma, type,
symbol, and allegory, but it differs from them all, and in its own
chosen sphere of real, every-day life, is peculiarly adapted to body
forth special teachings of Him who is “ the Verax , no less than the
Vents, and the Veritas .” 2
The general design of parables, as of all other kinds of figurative
language, is to embellish and set forth ideas and moral General use of
truths in attractive and impressive forms. Many a Parables-
moral lesson, if spoken in naked, literal style, is soon forgotten ; but,
clothed in parabolic dress, it arouses attention, and fastens itself in
the memory. Many rebukes and pungent warnings may be couched
1 Davidson’s Hermeneutics, p. 311.
2 Trench on the Miracles, p. 127. This eminent divine, whose work on the para¬
bles is one of the best of its kind, traces to considerable extent the differences
between the parable, the fable, the myth, the proverb, and the allegory, and sums
up as follows : “ The parable differs from the fable, moving as it does in a spiritual
world, and never transgressing the actual order of things natural ; from the mythus,
there being in the latter an unconscious blending of the deeper meaning with the out¬
ward symbol, the two remaining separate and separable in the parable ; from the
proverb, inasmuch as it is longer carried out, and not merely accidentally and occa¬
sionally, but necessarily figurative ; from the allegory, comparing as it does one thing
with another, at the same time preserving them apart as an inner and an outer, not
transferring, as does the allegory, the proprieties, and qualities, and relations of one
to the other.” — Notes on the Parables, pp. 15, 16. New York, 1857.
278
PRINCIPLES OF
in a parable, and thereby give less offence, and yet work better
effects than open plainness of speech could do. Nathan’s par¬
able (in 2 Sam. xii, 1-4) prepared the heart of David to receive
with profit the keen reproof he was about to administer. Some of
our Lord’s most pointed parables against the Jews — parables which
they perceived were directed against themselves — embodied re¬
proof, rebuke, and warning, and yet by their form and drapery,
they served to shield him from open violence (Matt, xxi, 45; Mark
xii, 12; Luke xx, 19). It is easy, also, to see that a parable may
enshrine a profound truth or mystery which the hearers may not
at first apprehend, but which, because of its striking or memorable
form, abides more firmly in the mind, and so abiding, yields at
length its deep and precious meaning.1
The special reason and purpose of the parables of Jestis are stated
Special reason in Matt, xiii, 10-17. Up to that point in his ministry
Sfparabies of ^esus appears not to have spoken in parables. “The
Jesus. words of grace {Xoyia rrjg x^9LT0^) which proceeded
from his mouth” (Luke iv, 22) in the synagogue, by the seashore,
and on the mount, were direct, simple, and plain. He used simile
and metaphor in the sermon on the mount, and elsewhere. In the
synagogue at Nazareth he quoted a familiar proverb and called it a
parable (Luke iv, 23). His words had power and authority, unlike
those of the scribes, and the people were astonished at his teaching.
But there came a time when he notably changed his style. His
simple precepts were often met with derision and scorn, and among
the multitudes there were always some who were anxious to pervert
his sayings. When multitudes gathered by the sea of Galilee to
hear him, “ and he spoke to them many things in parables ” (Matt.
xiii, 3), his disciples quickly observed the change and asked him,
“Why in parables dost thou speak to them?” Our Lord’s answer
is remarkable for its blended use of metaphor, proverb, and enigma,
so combined and connected with a prophecy of Isaiah (vi, 9, 10),
that it becomes in itself one of the profoundest of his discourses.
Because to you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of the
heavens, but to them it is not given. For whosoever lias, to him shall be
given and he shall superabound ; but whosoever has not, even what he has
1 Trench writes of our Lord’s parables : “ His words laid up in the memory were to
many that heard them like the money of another country, unavailable, it might be, for
present use, of which they knew not the value, but which yet was ready in their hand
when they reached that land and were naturalized in it. When the Spirit came and
brought all things to their remembrance, then he filled all the outlines of truth which
they before possessed with its substance, quickened all its forms with the power and
spirit of life.” — Notes on the Parables, p. 28.
279
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
shall be taken away from Mm. Therefore I speak to them in parables- be¬
cause seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor understand
And with them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah, which says, By hearing
ye shall hear and in no wise understand ; and seeing ye shall see and in no
wise perceive; for thick became the l.eart of this people, and they heard
heavily with their ears, and their eyes they closed, lest haply they should
perceive with their eyes, and with their ears hear, and with the heart un¬
derstand, and should turn again, and I should heal them. Matt, xiii, ll-lo.
The great thought in this answer seems to be that the Lord had
a twofold purpose in the use of parables, namely, both
to reveal and to conceal great truths.' There was, first, Sandcon-
that inner circle of followers who received his word with ccal truth-
joy, and who, like those who shared in the secret counsels of other
kingdoms, were gifted to know the mysteries of the Messianic reign,2
long hidden, but now about to be made known (comp. Rom. xi, 25 ;
xvi, 25 ; Col. i, 26). These should realize the truth of the proverb,
“ Whosoever has to him shall be given,” etc. This proverb ex¬
presses in an enigmatical way a most weighty and wonderful law
of experience in the things of God. He who is gifted with a desire
to know God, and to appropriate rightly the provisions of his grace,
shall increase in wisdom and knowledge more and more by the
manifold revelations of divine truth. But the man of opposite
character, who has heart, soul, and mind wherewith to love God,
but is unwilling to use his powers in earnest search for the
truth, shall lose even what he seems to have.3 His powers will
become weak and worthless by inactivity, and like the slothful
servant in the parable of the talents,4 he will lose that which should
have been his glory.
1 The Iva in the parallel passages of Mark iv, 12 and Luke viii, 10 shows that our
Lord teaches in these words the final end and purpose of his parables, not merely
their results. The quotation from Isaiah evinces the same thing.
2 “ The kingdom of heaven,” says Stier, “is itself a mystery for the natural earthly
understanding, and, like earthly kingdoms, it has its state secrets, which cannot and
ought not to be cast before every one. When, on a frank and friendly approach be¬
ing made, no feeling of loyalty shows itself, but rather a threatening of rebellioni
then it is wise and reasonable to draw a veil, which, however, is willingly removed
whenever any faithful one wishes to join himself more nearly to the king.” — Words
of the Lord Jesus, in loco.
3 So Luke (viii, 18) expresses the thought: K at o Sokei exeiv. On which Stier re¬
marks: “For every (one having) who does not keep (/carpet) is only a rfo/cwv
exelv (one seeming to have) in a manifold sense. It is an imaginary having, the noth¬
ingness of which is to be made manifest by a so-called taking, which yet properly
takes nothing from him. It is a having which has become lost through his unfaith¬
fulness (2 John 8).”
4 Of whom the same proverb is used again, and more fully illustrated, Matt, xxv,
28, 29. Comp, also John xv, 2.
280
PRINCIPLES OF
And so the use of parables, in our Lord’s teaching, became a test
Parables a test °f character. With those disposed to know and accept
of character, the truth the words of a parable served to arouse atten¬
tion and to excite inquiry. If they did not at first apprehend the
meaning, they would come, like the disciples to the Master (Matt,
xiii, 36; Mark iv, 10), and inquire of him, assured that all who
asked, searched, or knocked (Matt, vii, 7) at the door of Divine
Wisdom should certainly obtain their desire. Even those who at
first are dull of apprehension may be attracted and captivated by
the outer form of the parable, and by honest inquiry come to master
the laws of interpretation until they “ know all parables ” (Mark
iv, 13). But the perverse and fleshly mind shows its real character
by making no inquiry and evincing no desire to understand the
mysteries of the kingdom of God. Such a mind treats those mys¬
teries as a species of folly (1 Cor. i, 18).
The parables of the Bible are remarkable for their beauty, vari-
superior beauty ety, conciseness, and fulness of meaning. There is a
noticea^e appropriateness in the parables of Jesus,
parables. and their adaptation to the time and place of their
first utterance. The parable of the sower was spoken by the sea¬
side (Matt, xiii, 1, 2), whence might have been seen, at ho great
distance off, a sower actually engaged in sowing his seed. The
parable of the dragnet in the same chapter (verses 47-50) may
have been occasioned by the sight of such a net close by. The
parable of the nobleman going into a far country to receive for
himself a kingdom (Luke xix, 12) was probably suggested by the
case of Archelaus, who made a journey from Judea to Rome to
plead his right to the kingdom of Herod his father.1 As Jesus had
just passed through Jericho and was approaching Jerusalem, per¬
haps the sight of the royal palace which Archelaus had recently
rebuilt at Jericho2 suggested the allusion. Even the literal narra¬
tive of some of the parables is in the highest degree beautiful and
impressive. The parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke x, 30-37)
was probably based on fact. The road from Jerusalem to Jericho
was notably infested by robbers, and yet, leading as it did from
Perea to the holy city, it would be frequented by priests and Le-
vites passing to and fro. The coldness and neglect of the ministers
of the law, and the tender compassion of the Samaritan, are full of
interest and rich in suggestions. The narrative of the Prodigal
Son has been called “the pearl and crown of all the parables of
Scripture,” and “ a gospel in a gospel.” 3 We never tire of its literal
1 Josephus, Ant., xvii, 9, 1 ff. 11, 4. 2 Ibid., xvii, 11, 13.
3 Comp. Trench on the Parables, p. 316.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
281
statements, for they are as full of naturalness and beauty as they
are of lessons of sin and redemption.
The parable is commonly assumed to have three parts, (1) the
occasion and scope, (2) the similitude, in the form of a
real narrative, and (3) the moral and religious lessons. eiemenTo" a
These three parts are called by Salmeron, Glassius, and parable-
others, the root or basis (radix), the bark or covering (cortex), and
the marrow (medulla) or inner substance and core.1 The last two
are often called, respectively, the protasis and the apodosis. The
main thing in the construction of a parable is its similitude, or lit¬
eral narrative, for this always appears, and constitutes the parable
as a figure of speech. The occasion and scope, as well as the in¬
ternal sense, are not always expressed. In most cases, in fact, the
apodosis, or inner sense, is left for the hearer to find out for himself,
and sometimes the occasion and scope are difficult to determine.
But our Lord himself has given us two examples of interpreting
parables ; 2 and frequently the scope and application of the parable
are formally stated in the context, so that, with but few exceptions,
the parables of Scripture are not difficult to explain.3
As every parable essentially involves the three elements named
above, the hermeneutical principles which should guide Three princi-
us in understanding all parables are mainly three, ter^etingpar"
First, we should determine the historical occasion and abies.
aim of the parable; secondly, we should make an accurate analysis
1 Salmeron, De Parabolis Domini nostri, tr. iii, p. 15. Glassius, Philologia Sacra
(Lips. 1725) lib. ii, pars i, tr. ii, sect. 5. Horne (Introduction, ed. Ayre and Treg.,
vol. ii, p. 346) adopts the same division, and calls the three parts, respectively, the
root or scope, the sensible similitude , and the explanation or mystical sense. Davidson
(Hermeneutics, p. 311) says: “In the parable as in the allegory three things de¬
mand attention: (1) The thing to be illustrated; (2) the example illustrating; (3) the
tertium comparationis, or the similitude existing between them.”
2 Namely, in the interpretation of the parables of the sower (Matt, xiii, 18-23) and
of the tares of the field (Matt, xiii, 36-43). Trench observes, “that when our Lord
himself interpreted the two first which he delivered, it is more than probable that he
intended to furnish us with a key for the interpretation of all. These explanations,
therefore, are most important, not merely for their own sakes, but as laying down the
principles and canons of interpretation to be applied throughout.” — Notes on the
Parables, p. 36.
3 Trench (Parables, p. 32) beautifully observes : “ The parables, fair in their out¬
ward form, are yet fairer within — apples of gold in network of silver : each one of
them like a casket, itself of exquisite workmanship, but in which jewels yet richer
than itself are laid up ; or as fruit, which, however lovely to look upon, is yet more
delectable still in its inner sweetness. To find the golden key for this casket, at the
touch of which it shall reveal its treasures ; to open this fruit, so that nothing of its
hidden kernel shall be missed or lost, has naturally been regarded ever as a matter of
high concern.”
282
PRINCIPLES OF
of the subject matter, and observe the nature and properties of
the things employed as imagery in the similitude ; and thirdly, we
should interpret the several parts with strict reference to the gen¬
eral scope and design of the whole, so as to preserve a harmony of
proportions, maintain the unity of all the parts, and make promi¬
nent the great central truth.1 2 These principles can become of
practical value only by actual use and illustration in the interpre¬
tation of a variety of parables.
As our Lord has left us a formal explanation of what were prob¬
ably the first two parables he uttered, we do well, first of all, to
Principles ii- note the principles of interpretation as they appear illus-
parabie^the trate(^ *n h*8 examples. In the parable of the sower we
sower. find it easy to conceive the position and surroundings
of Jesus when he opened his parabolic discourse. He had gone out
to the seaside and sat down there, but when the multitudes crowded
around him, “he entered into a boat and sat; and all the multitude
stood on the beach” (Matt, xiii, 2). How natural and appropriate
for him then and there to think of the various dispositions and
characters of those before him. How like so many kinds of soil
were their hearts. How was his preaching “ the word of the king¬
dom” (verse 19) like a sowing of seed, suggested perhaps by the
sight of a sower, or of a sown field, on the neighbouring coast.8
Nay, how was his coming into the world like a going forth to sow.
Passing now to notice the similitude itself, we observe that our
Lord attached significance to the seed sown, the wayside and the
birds, the rocky places, the thorns, and the good ground. Each of
these parts has a relevancy to the whole. In that one field where
the sower scattered his grain there were all these kinds of soil,
and the nature and properties of seed and soil are in perfect keep¬
ing with the results of that sowing as stated in the parable. The
soil is in every case a human heart. The birds represent the evil
one,3 who is ever opposed to the work of the sower, and watches to
snatch away that which is sown in the heart, “ that they may not
1 One may compare the entire parable with a circle, of which the middle point is the
spiritual truth or doctrine, and of which the radii are the several circumstances of the
narration ; so long as one has not placed himself in the centre, neither the circle itself
appears in its perfect shape, nor will the beautiful unity with which the radii converge
to a single point be perceived, but this is all observed so soon as the eye looks forth
from the centre. Even so in the parable, if we have recognized its middle point, its
main doctrine, in full light, then will the proportion and right signification of all par¬
ticular circumstances be clear unto us, and we shall lay stress upon them only so far
as the main truth is thereby more vividly set forth. — Lisco, Die Farabeln Jesu, p. 22.
Fairbairn’s Translation (Edinburgh Bib. Cabinet), p. 29.
2 See Stanley, Sinai and Palestine, p. 418. 3 Mark says Satan; Luke, the devil.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
283
believe and be saved ” (Luke viii, 12). He who hears the Word and
understands not — on whom the heavenly truth makes no impression
may well be likened to a trodden pathway. “He has brought
himself to it; he has exposed his heart as a common road to every
evil influence of the world till it has become hard as a pavement —
till he has laid waste the very soil in which the word of God should
have taken root; and he has not submitted it to the ploughshare of
the law, which would have broken it; which, if he had suffered it
to do the work which God appointed it to do, would have gone be¬
fore, preparing that soil to receive the seed of the Gospel.” 1 With
equal force and propriety the rocky places, the thorns, and the
good ground represent so many varieties of hearers of the Word.
The application of the parable, closing with the significant words,
“he that has ears let him hear” (verse 8), might be safely left
to the minds and consciences of the multitudes who heard it.
Among those multitudes were doubtless many representatives of
all the classes designated.
The parable of the tares of the field had the same historical occa¬
sion as that of the sower, and is an important supple- Parable of
ment to it. In the interpretation of the foregoing par- Tares and its
able the sower was not made prominent. The seed interPretation*
was declared to be “ the word of the kingdom,” 2 and its character
and worth are variously indicated, but no explanation was given of
the sower. In this second parable the sower is prominently set
forth as the Son of man, the sower of good seed; and the work of
his great enemy, the devil, is presented with equal prominence.
But we are not to suppose that this parable takes up and carries
with it all the imagery and implications of the one preceding.
Other considerations are introduced under other imagery. But in
seeking the occasion and connexion of all the parables recorded in
Matt, xiii, we should note how one grows out of the other as by a
logical sequence. Three of them were spoken privately to the dis¬
ciples, but the whole seven were appropriate for the seaside; for
those of the mustard-seed, the treasure hid in a field, and the drag¬
net, no less than the sower and the tares of the field, may have been
suggested to Jesus by the scenes around him, and those of the
leaven and the merchantman seeking pearls were but counterparts,
respectively, of the mustard-seed and the hid treasure. Stier’s
suggestion, also, is worthy of note, that the parable of the tares
corresponds with the first kind of soil mentioned in the parable of
the sower, and helps to answer the question, Whence and how that
1 Trench, Notes on the Parables, p. 61.
3 In Luke viii, 11, it is written: “The seed is the word of God.”
284
PRINCIPLES OF
soil had come to serve so well the purpose of the devil. The para¬
ble of the mustard-plant, whose growth was so great, stands in
notable contrast with the second kind of soil in which there was no
real growth at all. The parable of the leaven suggests the oppo¬
site of the heart overgrown with worldliness, namely, a heart per¬
meated and purified by the inner workings of grace, while the fifth
and sixth parables — those of the treasure and the pearl of great
price — represent the various experiences of the good heart (repre¬
sented by the good ground) in apprehending and appropriating the
precious things of the Word of the kingdom. The seventh para¬
ble, that of the dragnet, appropriately concludes all with the doc¬
trine of the separating judgment which shall take place “in the
end of the age” (verse 49). Such an inner relation and connexion
we do well to trace, and the suggestions thereby afforded may be
especially valuable for homiletical purposes. They serve for in¬
struction, but they should not be insisted on as essential to a cor¬
rect interpretation of the several parables.
In the interpretation of the second parable Jesus gives special
Things inter- significance to the sower, the field, the good seed, the
preted and tares, the enemy, the harvest, and the reapers; also the
ticecrtn Jesus’ final burning of the tares and the garnering of the
exposition. wheat. But we should observe that he does not attach
a meaning to the men who slept, nor to the sleeping, nor to the
springing up of the blades of wheat, and their yielding fruit, nor
to the servants of the householder and the questions they asked.
These are but incidental parts of the parable, and necessary to a
happy filling up of its narrative. An attempt to show a special
meaning in them all would tend to obscure and confuse the main
lessons. So, if we would know how to interpret all parables, we
should notice what our Lord omitted as well as what he empha¬
sized in those expositions which are given us as models; and we
should not be anxious to find a hidden meaning in every word and
allusion..
At the same time we need not deny that these two parables con-
we may notice tained some other lessons which Jesus did not bring out
some things in Ris interpretation. There was no need for him to
which Jesus A
had no need to state the occasion or his parables, or what suggested
note. the imagery to his mind, or the inner logical connexion
which they sustained to one another. These things might be safe¬
ly left to every scribe who should become a disciple to the kingdom
of heaven (Matt, xiii, 52). In his explanation of the first parable,
Jesus sufficiently indicated that particular words and allusions, like
the having no root (to p) Ixeiv pi£av, Matt, xiii, C), and choked
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
285
[dnenvi^av, ver. 7; comp, ovvirvlyei in ver. 22) may suggest important
thoughts; and so the incidental words of the second parable, “lest
haply while gathering up the tares ye root up the wheat with them ”
(verse 29), though not afterward referred to in the explanation,
may also furnish lessons worthy of our consideration. So, too,
it may serve a useful purpose, in interpretation, to show the fitness
and beauty of any particular image or allusion. We would not ex¬
pect our Lord to call the attention of his hearers to such things,
but his well-disciplined disciples should not fail to note the pro¬
priety and suggestiveness of comparing the word of God to good
seed, and the children of the evil one to tares.1 The trodden path,
the rocky places, and the thorny ground, have peculiar fitness to
represent the several states of heart denoted thereby. Even the
incidental remark “ while men slept ” (Matt, xiii, 25) is a suggestive
hint that the enemy wrought his malicious work in darkness and
secrecy, when no one would be likely to be present and interrupt
him ; but it would break the unity of the parable to interpret these
words, as some have done, of the sleep of sin (Calovius), or the
dull slowness of man’s spiritual development and human weakness
generally (Lange), or the careless negligence of religious teachers
(Chrysostom).
It is also to be admitted that some incidental words, not designed
to be made prominent in the interpretation, may, nev- suggestive
ertlieless, deserve attention and comment. Not a little
pleasure and much instruction may be derived from the Attention and
incidental parts of some parables. The hundredfold, Comment-
sixtyfold, and thirtyfold increase, mentioned in the parable of the
sower, and in its interpretation, may be profitably compared with
making the five talents increase to ten talents, and the two to four
(in Matt, xxv, 16-22), and also with the increase in the parable of
the pounds (Luke xix, 16-19). The peculiar expressions, “he that
was sown by the wayside,” “he that was sown upon the rocky
places,” are not, as Alford truly observes, “a confusion of simili¬
tudes— no primary and secondary interpretation of onoQog [seed],—
but the deep truth both of nature and of grace. The seed sown,
springing up in the earth, becomes tlxe plant, and bears the fiuit, oi
fails of bearing it; it is, therefore, the representative, when sown,
of the individuals of whom the discourse is.”2 Especially do we
notice that the seed which, in the first parable, is said to be the
word of God” (Luke viii, 11), is defined in the second as “the
1 Greek avia, darnel , which is said to resemble wheat in its earlier stages of
growth, but shows its real character more clearly at the harvest time.
2 Greek Testament, in loco.
286
PRINCIPLES OF
children of the kingdom ” (Matt, xiii, 38). A different stage of prog¬
ress is tacitly assumed, and we think of the word of God as having
developed in the good heart in which it was cast until it has taken
up that heart within itself and made it a new creation.1
From the above examples we may derive the general principles
Not specific which are to be observed in the interpretation of
sense and Para^^es* No specific rules can be formed that will
criminating apply to every case, and show what parts of a parable
guidetheinter- are designed to be significant, and what parts are mere
preter. drapery and form. Sound sense and delicate discrimina¬
tion are to be cultivated and matured by a protracted study of all
the parables, and by careful collation and comparison. Our Lord’s
examples of interpretation show that most of the details of his par¬
ables have a meaning; and yet there are incidental words and allu¬
sions which are not to be pressed into significance. We should,
therfore, study to avoid, on the one side, the extreme of ingenuity
which searches for hidden meanings in every word, and, on the
other, the disposition to pass over many details as mere rhetorical
figures. In general it may be said that most of the details in a
parable have a meaning, and those which have no special signifi¬
cance in the interpretation, serve, nevertheless, to enhance the force
and beauty of the rest. Such parts, as Boyle observes, “ are like
the feathers which wing our arrows, which, though they pierce not
like the head, but seem slight things, and of a different matter from
the rest, are yet requisite to make the shaft to pierce, and do both
convey it to and penetrate the mark.”2 We may also add, with
Trench, that “ it is tolerable evidence that we have found the right
interpretation of a parable if it leave none of the main circum¬
stances unexplained. A false interpretation will inevitably betray
itself, since it will invariably paralyze and render nugatory some
important member of an entire account. If we have the right key
in our hand, not merely some of the words, but all, will have their
corresponding parts, and, moreover, the key will turn without
grating or overmuch forcing; and if we have the right interpreta¬
tion it will scarcely need to be defended and made plausible with
great appliance of learning, to be propped up by remote allusions
to rabbinical or profane literature, or by illustrations drawn from
the recesses of antiquity.” 3
The prophet Isaiah, in chap, v, 1-6, sings of his Beloved Friend,
1 “ Our life,” says Lange, “ becomes identified with the spiritual seed, and principles
assume, so to speak, a bodily shape in individuals.” Commentary on Matthew, in loco.
2 Quoted by Trench, Notes on the Parables, p. 34.
3 Notes on the Parables, p. 39.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
287
and his Friend’s own song touching his vineyard, and in verse 7
declares that
The vineyard of Jehovah of hosts is the house of Israel,
And the man of Judah is the plant of his delight;
And he waited for justice, and behold bloodshed,
For righteousness, and behold a cry.
This short explanation gives the main purpose of the parable.
No special meaning is put on the digging, the gathering out of
the stones, the tower, and the winevat. Our Lord appropriates
the imagery of this passage in his parable of the wicked
husbandmen (Matt, xxi, 33-44). But to understand, bieoi thevine-
in either parable, that the tower represents Jerusalem yard'
(Grotius), or the temple (Bengel), that the winevat is the altar
(Chrysostom), or the prophetic institution (Irenseus), that the gath¬
ering out of the stones denotes the expulsion of the Canaan ites
from the Holy Land, together with the stone idols (Grotius), is to
go upon doubtful ground, and introduce that which will confuse
rather than elucidate. These several particulars are rather to be
taken together as denoting the complete provision which Jehovah
made for the security, culture, and prosperity of his people. “What
is there to do more for my vineyard,” he asks, “ that I have not
done in it ? ” He had spared no pains or outlay, and yet, when the
time of grape harvest came, his vineyard brought forth wild grapes.
What would seem to have been so full of hope and promise yielded
only disappointment and chagrin. The grapes he expected were
truth and righteousness; those which he found were bloodshed and
oppression. He announces, accordingly, his purpose to destroy that
vineyard, and make it an utter desolation, a threat fearfully ful¬
filled in the subsequent history of Israel and the Holy Land.
Such is the substance of the interpretation oj? Isaiah’s parable,
but the language in which it is clothed has many beautiful strokes
and delicate allusions which are worthy of attention.1 Our Lord’s
parable of the wicked husbandmen, which is based upon its im¬
agery, may be profitably noticed in connexion with it. It is
1 Such, for instance, is the “very fertile hill” in which this vineyard was planted;
literally, in a horn , a son of oil , or fatness ; metaphor for a horn-shaped hill of rich
soil, and used in allusion to the land of promise (comp. Deut. viii, 7-9). There is
also an ironical play on the Hebrew words for justice and bloodshed, righteousness and
cry in the last two lines of verse 7 : “He looked for D35^p, mislipat , and behold
nQTD, mispach , for np*TC, tzdhakah, and behold nj5^V, tzgnakah .” Contrast also the
jubilant opening in which the prophet essays to sing his well-beloved’s song with the
change of person in verse 3 and the sad tone of disappointment which follows.
288
PRINCIPLES OF
recorded by Matthew (xxi, 33-44), Mark (xii, 1-12), and Lnke
(xx, 9-18), and, though spoken in the ears of “the people” (Luke
xx, 9), the chief priests, the scribes, and the Pharisees understood
that it was directed against them (Matt, xxi, 45; Luke xx, 19).
The context also informs us (in Matt, xxi, 43) that the
Parable of tbe t _ . , ^ ^ -• •• t
Wicked Hus- vineyard represents the kingdom of God. In Isaiah s
bandmen. parable the whole house of Israel is at fault, and is
threatened with utter destruction. Here the fault is with the hus¬
bandmen to whom the vineyard was leased, and whose wickedness
appears most flagrant; and here, accordingly, the threat is not to
destroy the vineyard, but the husbandmen. The great questions,
then, in the interpretation of our Lord’s parable, are: (1) What is
meant by the vineyard? (2) Who are the husbandmen, servants,
and son ? (3) What events are contemplated in the destruction of
the husbandmen and the giving of the vineyard to others ? These
questions are not hard to answer: (1) The vineyard in Isaiah is the
Israelitish people, considered not merely as the Old Testament
Church, but also as the chosen nation established in the land of
Canaan. Here it is the more spiritual idea of the kingdom of God
considered as an inheritance of divine grace and truth to be so ap¬
prehended and utilized unto the honour and glory of God as that
husbandmen, servants, and Son may be joint heirs and partakers of
its benefits. (2) The husbandmen are the divinely commissioned
leaders and teachers of the people, whose business and duty it was
to guide and instruct those committed to their care in the true
knowledge and love of God. They were the chief priests and
scribes who heard this parable, and knew that it was spoken against
them. The servants, as distinguished from the husbandmen, are to
be understood of the prophets, who were sent as special messengers
of God, and whose mission was usually to the leaders of the people.1
But they had been mocked, despised, and maltreated in many ways
(2 Chron. xxxvi, 16); Jeremiah was shut up in prison (Jer. xxxii, 3),
and Zechariah was stoned (2 Chron. xxiv, 21; comp. Matt, xxiii,
34-37, and Acts vii, 52). The one son, the beloved, isy of course,
the Son of man, who “ came unto his own, and they that were his
own received trim not” (John i, 11). (3) The destruction of the
wicked husbandmen was accomplished in the utter overthrow and
miserable ruin of the Jewish leaders in the fall of Jerusalem. Then
the avenging of “ all the righteous blood ” of the prophets came
upon that generation (Matt, xxiii, 35, 36), and then, too, the
1 Servants are the extraordinary ministers of God, husbandmen the ordinary. The
former are almost always badly received by the latter, who take ill the interruption
of their own quiet possession. — Bengel, Gnomon, in loco.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
280
vineyard of the kingdom of God, repaired and restored as the New
Testament Church, was transferred to the Gentiles.
There are many minor lessons and suggestive hints in the lan¬
guage of this parable, but they should not, in an expo¬
sition, be elevated into such prominence as to confuse notTobemade
these leading thoughts. Here, as in Isaiah, we should Prominent-
not seek special meanings in the hedge, winepress, and tower, nor
should we make a great matter of what particular fruits the owner
had reason to expect, nor attempt to identify each one of the ser¬
vants sent with some particular prophet or messenger mentioned in
Jewish history. Still less should we think of finding special mean¬
ings in forms of expression used by one of the evangelists and not
by another. Some of these minor points may be rich in sugges¬
tions and abundantly worthy of comment, but in view of the over¬
straining which they have too frequently received at the hands of
expositors we need the constant caution that at most they are in¬
cidental rather than important.
Two other parables of our Lord illustrate the casting off of the
Jews and the calling of the Gentiles. They are the „
marriage of the King’s Son (Matt, xxn, 2-14), and the analogous par-
great supper (Luke xiv, 16-24). The former is recorded ables*
only by Matthew, and follows immediately after that of the wicked
husbandmen. The latter is recorded only by Luke. Some of the
rationalistic critics have argued that these are but different versions
of the same discourse, but a careful analysis will show that, while
they have marked analogies, they have also numerous points of
difference. And it is an aid to the interpretation of such analogous
parables to study them together and mark their diverging lines of
thought. The parable of the marriage of the King’s Son, as com¬
pared with that of the wicked husbandmen, exhibits an advance in
thought as notable as that observed in the parable of the tares as
compared with that of the sower. Trench here observes “ how the
Lord is revealing himself in ever clearer light as the central person
of the kingdom, giving here a far plainer hint than there of the
nobility of his descent. There he was indeed the son, the only and
beloved one, of the householder; but here his race is royal, and he
appears himself at once as the King and the King’s Son (Psa. lxxii, 1).
This appearance of the householder as the King announces that
the sphere in which this parable moves is the New Parabie of Mar-
Testament dispensation — is the kingdom which was an- riage of King’s
nounced before, but was only actually present with the Husbandmen
coming of the King. The last was a parable of the comPar«*-
Old Testament history; even Christ himself appears there rather as
19
290
PRINCIPLES OF
the last and greatest of the line of its prophets and teachers than as
the founder of a new kingdom. In that, a parable of the law, God
appears demanding something from men ; in this, a parable of
grace, God appears more as giving something to them. There he
is displeased that his demands are not complied with, here that his
goodness is not accepted; there he requires, here he imparts. And
thus, as we so often find, the two mutually complete one another;
tliis taking up the matter where the other left it.” 1 The great
purpose in both parables was to make conspicuous the shameful
character and conduct of those who were under great obligation to
show all possible respect and loyalty. The conduct of the hus¬
bandmen was atrocious in the extreme; but it may be said that a
claim of rent was demanded of them, and there was some supposa-
ble motive to treat the messengers of the owner of the vineyard
with disrespect. Not so, however, with those bidden to the royal
marriage feast. That guests, honoured by an invitation from the
king to attend the marriage of his son, should have treated such in¬
vitation with wilful refusal and contempt, and even have gone to
the extreme of abusing the royal servants who came to bid them to
the marriage, and of putting some to death, seems hardly conceiv¬
able. But this very feature which seems so improbable in itself is
a prominent part of the parable, and designed to set in the most
odious light the conduct of those chief priests and Pharisees who
were treating the Son of God with open contempt, and would fain
have put him to death. Such ingratitude and disloyalty deserved
no less a punishment than the sending forth of armies to destroy
the murderers and to burn their city (verse 7).
When now we compare the parable of the marriage of the king’s
Parables of Mar- son with that of the great supper (Luke xiv, 16) we
riage of King’s find they both agree (l) in having a festival as the
Son and Great . . \ . . ,, , . , .
Supper com- basis o± their imagery, (2) m that invitations were sent
pared. to persons already bidden, (3) in the disrespect shown
by those bidden, and (4) the calling in of the poor and neglected
from the streets and highways. But they differ in the following
particulars: The parable of the great supper was spoken at an
earlier period of our Lord’s ministry, when the opposition of chief
priests, scribes, and Pharisees was as yet not violent. It was
uttered in the house of a Pharisee whither he had been invited to
eat bread (verses 1, 12), and where there appeared in his presence
a dropsical man, whose malady he healed. Thereupon he addressed
a parable to those who were bidden, counselling them not to recline
on the chief seat at table unless invited there (verses 7-11). He
1 Notes on the Parables, p. 180.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
291
also uttered a proverbial injunction to the Pharisee who had in¬
vited him to make a feast for the poor and the maimed rather than
kinsmen and rich friends (verses 12 -14); and then he added the
parable of the great supper. But the parable of the marriage of
the king s son was uttered at a later period, and in the temple,
when no Pharisee would have invited him to his table, and when
the hatred of chief priests and scribes had become so bitter that it
gave occasion for ominous and fearful words, such as that parable
contained. We note further that, in the earlier parable, the occa¬
sion was a great supper ( delnvov ), in the latter a wedding (ydfiog).
In the one, the person making the feast is simply “a certain man”
(Luke xiv, 16), in the other he is a king. In the one the guests all
make excuse, in the other they treat the royal invitation with con¬
tempt and violence. In the one those who were bidden are simply
denounced with the statement that none of them shall taste of the
supper; in the other the king’s armies are sent forth to destroy the
murderers of his servants and to burn their city. In the earlier
parable there are two sendings forth to call in guests, first from the
streets and lanes of the city, and next from the highways and
hedges — intimating first the going unto the lost sheep of the house
of Israel (Matt, x, 6; xv, 24), and afterward to the Gentiles (Acts
xiii, 46) ; in the latter only one outgoing call is indicated, and that
one subsequent to the destruction of the murderers and their city.
In that later prophetic moment Jesus contemplated the ingather¬
ing of the Gentiles. Then to the later parable is added the inci¬
dent of the guest who appeared without the wedding garment
(Matt, xxii, 11-14), which Strauss characteristically conjectures to
be the fragment of another parable which Matthew by mistake at¬
tached to this, because of its referring to a feast.1 But with a
purer and profounder insight Trench sees in these few added words
“ a wonderful example of the love and wisdom which marked
the teaching of our Lord. For how fitting was it in a discourse
which set forth how sinners of every degree were invited to a fel¬
lowship in the blessings of the Gospel, that they should be reminded
likewise, that for the lasting enjoyment of these, they must put off
their former conversation — a most needful caution, lest any should
abuse the grace of God, and forget that while as regarded the past
they were freely called, they were yet now called unto holiness.” *
The parable of the barren fig-tree (Luke xiii, 6-9) had its special
application in the cutting off of Israel, but it is not The ^rea
necessarily limited to that one event. It has lessons of Fig-tree,
universal application, illustrating the forbearance and longsuffering
1 Life of Jesus, § 78. 2 Notes on the Parables, pp. 179, 180.
S93
PRINCIPLES OF
of God, as also the certainty of destructive judgment upon every one
who not only produces no good fruit, but “ also cumbers the ground”
( aal TTjv yqv tcarapyel ). Its historical occasion appears from the
preceding context, (verses 1-5), but the logical connexion is not so
apparent. It is to be traced, however, to the character of those in¬
formants who told him of Pilate’s outrage on the Galileans. For
the twice-repeated warning, “ Except ye repent ye shall all likewise
perish” (verses 3 and 5), implies that the persons addressed were
sinners deserving fearful penalty. They were probably from Je¬
rusalem, and representatives of the Pharisaic party who had little
respect for the Galileans, and perhaps intended their tidings to be
a sort of gibe against Jesus and his Galilean followers.
The means for understanding the occasion and import of Nathan’s
Old Testament parable (2 Sam. xii, 1-4) are abundantly furnished in
parables. the context. The same is true of the parable of the
wise woman of Tekoah (2 Sam. xiv, 4-7), and that of the wounded
prophet in 1 Kings xx, 38-40. The narrative, in Eccles. ix, 14, 15,
of the little city besieged by a great king, but delivered by the wis¬
dom of a poor wise man, has been regarded by some as an actual
history. Those who date the Book of Ecclesiastes under the
Persian domination think that allusion is made to the delivery of
Athens by Themistocles, when that city was besieged by Xerxes,
the great king of Persia. Others have suggested the deliverance
of Potidsea (Herod., viii, 128), or Tripolis (Diodor., xvi, 41). Hitzig
even refers it to the little seaport Dora besieged by Antiochus the
Great (Polybius, v, 66). But in none of these last three cases is it
known that the deliverance was effected by a poor wise man ; and
as for Athens, it could hardly have been called a little city, with
few men in it, nor could the brilliant leader of the Greeks be prop¬
erly called “ a poor wise man.” It is far better to take the narra¬
tive as a parable, which may or may not have had its basis in some
real incident of the kind, but which was designed to illustrate the
great value of wisdom. The author makes his own application in
verse 16: “Then said I, Better is wisdom than strength; yet the
wisdom of the poor is despised, and his words — none of them are
heard.” That is, such is the general rule. A case of exceptional
extremity, like the siege referred to, may for a moment exhibit the
value of wisdom, and its superiority over strength and weapons of
war ; but the lesson is soon forgotten, and the masses of men give
no heed to the words of the poor, whatever their wisdom and worth.
The two verses that follow (17 and 18) are an additional comment
upon the lesson taught in the parable, and put its real meaning be¬
yond all reasonable doubt. But it is a misuse of the parable, and a
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
298
pressing of its import beyond legitimate bounds, to say, with Heng-
stenberg : “ The poor man with his delivering wisdom is an image
of Israel. . . . Israel would have proved a salt to the heathen world
if ear had only been given to the voice of wisdom dwelling in his
midst.” 1 Still more unsound is the spiritualizing process by which
the besieged city is made to represent “ the life of the individual :
the great king who lays siege to it is death and the judgment of
the Lord.”2
All the parables of our Lord are contained in the first three
Gospels. Those of the door, the good shepherd, and A11Jesug, ara^
the vine, recorded by John, are not parables proper, ties iiTthtTsyl
but allegories. In most instances we find in the imme- nopfcic Gospels-
diate context a clue to the correct interpretation. Thus the para¬
ble of the unmerciful servant (Matt, xviii, 23-34) has its occasion
stated in verses 21 and 22, and its application in verse 35. The par¬
able of the rich man who planned to pull down his barns and build
greater in order to treasure up all the increase of his fields (Luke
xii, 16-20), is readily seen from the context to have been uttered
as a warning against covetousness. The parable of the importunate
friend at midnight (Luke xi, 5-8) is but a part of a discourse on
prayer. The parables of the unjust judge and the importunate
widow, and of the Pharisee and the publican at prayer (Luke xviii,
1—14), have their purpose stated by the evangelist who records them.
The parable of the good Samaritan (Luke x, 30-3 V) was called forth
by the question of the lawyer, who desired to justify himself, and
asked, “Who is my neighbour?”
The parable of the labourers in the vineyard (Matt, xx, 1-16),
although its occasion and application are given in the Parable of tbe
context, has been regarded as difficult of interpretation. Labourers in
It was occasioned by the mercenary spirit of Peter’s tlleVmeyard-
question (in chap, xix, 27), “What then shall we have?” and its
principal aim is evidently to rebuke and condemn that spirit. But
the difficulties of interpreters have arisen chiefly from giving undue
prominence to the minor points of the parable, as the penny a day,
and the different hours at which the labourers were hired. Stier
insists that the penny (drjvaptov), or day’s wages (fuc&og), is the
principal question and main feature of the parable. Others make
the several hours mentioned represent different periods of life at
which men are called into the kingdom of God, as childhood, youth,
manhood, and old age. Others have supposed that the Jews were
denoted by those first hired, and the Gentiles by those who were
1 Commentary on Ecclesiastes, in loco.
2 Wangemann, as quoted by Delitzsch, in loco.
294
PRINCIPLES OF
called last. Origen held that the different hours represented the
different epochs of human history, as the time before the flood,
from Abraham to Moses, from Moses to Christ, etc. But all this
tends to divert the mind from the great thought in the purpose of
the parable, namely, to condemn the mercenary spirit, and indicate
that the rewards of heaven are matters of grace and not of debt.
And we should make very emphatic the observation of Bengel,
that the parable is not so much a prediction as a warning.1 The
fundamental fallacy of those exegetes who make the penny the
most prominent point, is their tacit assumption that the narrative
Mistakes of in. of the parable is designed to portray a murmuring and
terpreters. fault finding which will actually take place at the last
day. Unless we assume this, according to Stier, “ no reality would
correspond with the principal point of the figurative narration.” 2
Accordingly, the vnaye, go thy way (verse 14), is understood, like
the nopeveade, depart (of Matt, xxv, 41), as an angry rejection and
banishment from God ; and the apov to gov, take thine own , “ can
mean nothing else than Avhat, at another stage, Abraham says to
the rich man (Luke xvi, 25) : What thou hast contracted for, with
that thou art discharged ; but now, away from my service and from
all further intercourse with me!”3 So also Luther says that “the
murmuring labourers go away with their penny and are damned.”
But the word vnayo) has been already twice used in this parable
(verses 4 and 7) in the sense of going away into the vineyard to
work, and it seems altogether too violent a change to put on it here
the sense of going into damnation. Still less supposable is such a
sense of the word when addressed to those who had filled an hon¬
ourable contract, laboured faithfully in the vineyard, and “borne
the burden of the day and the burning heat” (verse 12).
Let us now carefully apply the three principles of interpretation
enunciated above 4 to the exposition of this intricate parable. First,
Occasion and the historical occasion and scope. Jesus had said to the
gcope. young man who had great possessions : “ If thou wouldst
be perfect, go (vnaye), sell thy possessions and give to the poor, and
thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me” (Matt,
xix, 21). The young man went away sorrowful, for he had many
goods (nrruLara noXXa), and Jesus thereupon spoke of the difficulty
of a rich man entering into the kingdom of heaven (verses 23-26).
“ Then answered Peter and said to him, Lo, we forsook all things
and followed thee: what then shall we have?” Tt apa earai r\glv ;
what then shall be to us? — that is, in the way of compensation and
1 Non est praedictio sed admonitia. Gnomon, in loco.
2 Words of the Lord Jesus, in loco. 3 Ibid. 4 See above, pp. 281, 282.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
295
reward. AY bat shall be our ■drjoavpdg ev ovpavolg, treasure in heaven f
Ihis question, not reprehensible in itself, breathed a bad spirit of
overweening confidence and self-esteem, by its evident comparison
with the young man : We have done all that you demand of him;
we forsook our all ; what treasure shall be ours in heaven? Jesus
did not at once rebuke what was bad in the question, but, first,
gi aciously responded to what was good in it. These disciples, who
did truly leave all and follow him, shall not go without blissful re¬
ward. “ Verily, I say unto you that ye, who followed me, in the
regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit upon the throne of his
glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve
tribes of Israel.” This was, virtually, making to them a promise
and pledge of what they should have in the future, but he adds :
“And every one who forsook houses, or brothers, or sisters, or
father, or mother, or children, or lands for my name’s sake, shall
receive manifold more,1 and shall inherit life eternal.” Here is a
common inheritance and blessing promised to all who meet the
conditions named. But in addition to this great reward, which is
common alike to all, there will be distinctions and differences ; and
so it is immediately added: “But many first will be last and last
first.” And from this last statement the parable immediately pro¬
ceeds: “For {yap) the kingdom of' heaven is like,” etc. This con¬
nexion Stier recognizes : “ Because Peter has inquired after reward
and compensation, Christ says, first of all, what is contained in
verses 28, 29 ; but because he has asked with a culpable eagerness
for reward, the parable concerning the first and the last follows
with its earnest warning and rebuke.” 2 But to say, in the face of
such a connexion and context, that the reward contemplated in the
penny has no reference to eternal life, but is to be understood sole¬
ly of temporal good which may lead to damnation, is virtually to
ignore and defy the context, and bring in a strange and foreign
thought. The scope of the parable is no doubt to admonish Peter
and the rest against the mercenary spirit and self-conceit apparent
in his question, but it concludes, as Meyer observes, “ and that very
appropriately, with language which no doubt allows the apostles to
contemplate the prospect of receiving rewards of a peculiarly dis¬
tinguished character (xix, 28), but does not warrant the absolute
certainty of it, nor does it recognize the existence of any thing like
so-called valid claims.” 3
1 TlnAAdTrAacrtova is the reading of two most ancient codices, B and L, a number
of versions, as Syriac and Sahidic, and is adopted by Lachmann, Alford, Tischendorf,
Tregelles, and Westcott and HdVt. Comp. Luke xviii, 30.
2 Words of the Lord Jesus, in lopo. 3 Commentary on Matt, xx, 16.
296
PRINCIPLES OP
Having ascertained the historical occasion and scope, the next
step is to analyze the subject matter, and note what appears to
* have special prominence. It will hardly be disputed
Prominent r J 1 .
points in the that the particular agreement of the householder with
parables. the labourers hired early in the morning is one point
too prominent to be ignored in the exposition. Noticeable also is
the fact that the second class (hired at the third hour) go to work
without any special bargain, and rely on the word “ whatsoever is
right I will give you.” So also with those called at the sixth and
ninth hours. But those called at the eleventh hour received (ac¬
cording to the true text of verse 1) no special promise at all, and
nothing is said to them about reward. They had been waiting and
seem to have been anxious for a call to work, and were idle because
no one had hired them, but as soon as an order came they went off
to their labour, not stopping so much as to speak or hear about,
wages. In all this it does not appear that the different hours have
any special significance; but we are rather to note the spirit and
disposition of the different labourers, particularly the first and the
last hired. In the account of the settlement at the close of the d&y,
only these last and the first are mentioned with any degree of
prominence. The last are the first rewarded, and with such marks
of favour that the self-conceit and mercenary spirit of those who,
in the early morning, had made a special bargain for a penny a
day, are shown in words of fault finding, and elicit the rebuke of
the householder and the declaration of his absolute right to do what
he will with his own.
If now we interpret these several parts with strict reference to
The parable the occasion and scope of the parable, we must think
admoaitfon for t^le aPostles as those for whom its admonition
the disciples, was first of all intended. What was wrong in the
spirit of Peter’s question called for timely rebuke and admoni¬
tion. Jesus gives him and the others assurance that no man who
becomes his disciple shall fail of glorious reward; and, somewhat
after the styla of the agreement with the labourers first hired, he
bargains with the twelve, and agrees that every one of them shall
have a throne. But, he adds (for such is the simplest application
of the proverb, “Many first shall be last,” etc.): Do not imagine,
in vain self-conceit, that, because you were the first to leave all and
follow me, you therefore must needs be honoured more than others'
who may hereafter enter my service. That is not the noblest spir¬
it which asks, What shall I have f It is better to ask, What shall
1 do? He who follows Christ, and makes all manner of sacrifices
for his sake, confident that it will be well, is nobler than he who
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
297
lingers to make a bargain. Nay, he who goes into the Lord’s
vineyard asking no questions, and not even waiting to talk about
the wages, is nobler and better still. His spirit and labour, though
it continue but as an hour, may have qualities so beautiful and
rare as to lead Him, whose heavenly rewards are gifts of grace, and
not payments of debts, to place him on a more conspicuous throne
than that which any one of the apostles may attain. The mur¬
muring, and the response which it draws from the householder, are
not to be taken as a prophecy of what may be expected to take
place at the final judgment, but rather as a suggestive hint and
warning for Peter and the rest to examine the spirit in which they
followed Jesus.
If this be the real import of the parable, how misleading are
those expositions which would make the penny a day the most
prominent point. How unnecessary and irrelevant to regard the
words of the householder (in verses 13-16) as equivalent to the final
sentence of damnation, or to attach special significance to the stand¬
ing idle. How unimportant the different hours at which the la¬
bourers were hired, or the question whether the householder be God
or Christ. The interpretation which aims to maintain the unity of
the whole narrative, and make prominent the great central truth,
will see in this parable a tender admonition and a suggestive warn¬
ing against the wrong spirit evinced in Peter’s words.1
The parable of the unjust steward (Luke xvi, 1-13) has been re¬
garded, as above all others, a crux interpretum. It Parable of the
appears to have no such historical or logical connexion unjust steward,
with wThat precedes as will serve in any material way to help in its
interpretation. It follows immediately after the three parables of
the lost sheep, the lost drachma, and the prodigal son, which were
addressed to the Pharisees and the scribes who murmured because
Jesus received sinners and ate with them (chap, xv, 2). Having
uttered those parables for their special benefit, he spoke one “ also
to the disciples ” (nai npdg rovg ga-&7]rdg, xvi, 1 ). These disciples
are probably to be understood of that wider circle which included
others besides the twelve (compare Luke x, 1), and among them
were doubtless many publicans like Matthew and Zacchaeus, who
needed the special lesson here enjoined. That lesson is now
quite generally acknowledged to be a wise and prudent use of
this world's goods. For the sagacity, shrewd foresight, and care to
1 The words, “ For many are called, but few chosen,” which appear in some ancient
codices (C, D, N), at the close of verse 16, are wanting in the oldest and best manu¬
scripts (X, B, L, Z), and are rejected by the best textual critics (Tischendorf, Tregelles,
Westcott and Hort). We have, therefore, taken no notice of them above.
298
PRINCIPLES OF
shift for himself, which the steward evinced in his hasty action
with his lord’s debtors (<; bpovifiug enoitjaev , ver. 8), are emphatically
the tertium comparationis, and are said to have been apjdauded
(. kn^veaev ) even by his master.
The parable first of all demands that we apprehend correctly the
unauthorized ^tera^ import of its narrative, and avoid the reading or
additions to the imagining in it any thing that is not really there,
parable. Thus, for example, it is said the steward wTas accused
of wasting the rich man’s goods, and it is nowhere intimated that
this accusation was a slander. We have, therefore, no right (as
Koster) to assume that it was. Neither is there any warrant for
saying (as Van Oosterzee and others) that the steward had been
guilty of exacting excessive and exorbitant claims of his lord’s
debtors, remitting only what was equitable to his lord, and wasting
the rest on himself; and that his haste to have them write down
their bills to a lower amount was simply, on his part, an act of jus¬
tice toward them and an effort to repair his former wrongs. If
such had been the fact he would not have wasted his lord’s goods
(rd vTTdpxovra avrov ), but those of the debtors. Nor is there any
ground to assume that the steward made restitution from his own
funds (Brauns), or, that his lord, after commending his prudence, re¬
tained him in his service (Baumgarten-Crusius). All this is putting
into the narrative of our Lord what he did not see fit to put there.
We are to notice, further, that Jesus himself applies the parable to
Jesus’ own ap- the disciples by his words of counsel and exhortation in
plication. verse 9, and makes additional comments on it in verses
10-13. These comments of the author of the parable are to be
carefully studied as containing the best clue to his meaning. The
main lesson is given in verse 9, where the disciples are urged to
imitate the prudence and wisdom of the unjust steward in making
to themselves friends out of unrighteous mammon (etc rov, tc. r. A.,
from the resources and opportunities afforded by the wealth, or the
worldly goods, in their control). The steward exhibited in his
shrewd plan the quick sagacity of a child of the world, and knew
well how to ingratiate himself with the men of his own kind and
generation. In this respect it is said the children of this age are
wiser than the children of the light; 1 therefore, our Lord would say,
1 The latter part of verse 8 is, literally, “ Because the sons of this age are wiser than
the sons of the light in reference to their own generation.” Not in their generation ,
as Authorized Version, but eig ttjv yeveav tt/v kavrtiv, for their generation , as regards,
or in relation to, their own generation. “ The whole body of the children of the world
— a category of like-minded men — is described as a generation, a clan of connexions,
and how appropriately, since they appear precisely as viol, sons.” — Meyer. “The
ready accomplices in the steward’s fraud showed themselves to be men of the same
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
299
emulate and imitate them in this particular. Similarly, on another
occasion, he had enjoined upon his disciples, when they were sent
forth into the hostile world, to be wise as serpents and harmless as
doves (Matt, x, 16).
So far all is tolerably clear and certain, but when we inquire
Who is the rich man (in verse 1), and who are the friends who re¬
ceive into the eternal tabernacles (verse 9), we find great diversity
of opinion among the best interpreters. Usually the rich man lias
been understood of God, as the possessor of all things, who uses us
as his stewards of whatever goods are entrusted to our care.
Olshausen, on the other hand, takes the rich man to be the devil,
considered as the prince of this world. Meyer explains the rich
man as Mammon, and urges that verses 9 and 13 especially require
this view. It will be seen that the adoption of either one of these
views will materially effect our exegesis of the whole parable.
Here, then, especially, we need to make a most careful use of the
second and third hermeneutical rules afore mentioned, and observe
the nature and properties of the things employed as imagery, and
interpret them with strict reference to the great central thought
and to the general scope and design of the whole. Our choice
would seem to lie between the common view and that of Meyer;
for Olshausen’s explanation, so far as it differs essentially from
Meyer’s, has nothing in the text to make it even plausible; and the
other views (as of Schleiermacher, who makes the rich man repre¬
sent the Romans, and Grossmann, who understands the Roman
emperor) have still less in their favour. The common exposition,
which takes the rich man to be God, may be accepted and main¬
tained wdthout serious difficulty. The details of the parable are
then to be explained as incidental, designed merely to exhibit the
shrewdness of the unjust steward, and no other analogies are to be
pressed. The disciples are urged to be discreet and faithful to God
in their use of the unrighteous mammon, and thereby secure the
friendship of God, Christ, angels, and their fellow men,1 who may
generation as he was — they were all of one race, children of the ungodly world.” —
Trench. There is no sufficient reason to supply the thought, or refer the phrase,
their oton generation , to the sons of light (as De Wette, Olshausen, Trench, and many).
If that were the thought another construction could easily have been adopted to ex¬
press it clearly. As it stands, it means that the children of light do not, in general,
in relation to themselves or others, evince the prudence and sagacity which the chil¬
dren of the world know so well how to use in their relations to their own race of
worldlings.
1 Some, however, who adopt this exposition in general, will not allow that God or
the angels are to be understood by the friends , inasmuch as such reference would not
accord strictly with the analogy of the parable.
300
PRINCIPLES OF
all be thereby disposed to receive them, when the goods of this
world fail, into the eternal habitations.
But the interpretation which makes the rich man to be Mammon,
The rich man gives a special point and force to several noticeable
t° be under- remarks Gf Jesus, maintains a self-consistency within
mon. itself, and also enforces the same great central thought
as truly as the other exposition. It contemplates the disciples as
about to be put out of the stewardship of Mammon, and admonishes
them to consider how the world loves its own, and knows how to
calculate and plan wisely (< pgovi^g ) for personal and selfish ends.
Such shrewdness as that displayed by the unjust steward calls forth
the applause of even Mammon himself, who is defrauded by the
act. But, Jesus says, “Ye cannot serve God and Mammon.” Ye
must, in the nature of things, be unfaithful to the one or the other.
If ye are true and faithful to the unrighteous lord Mammon, ye
cannot be sons of the light and friends of God. If, on the other
hand, ye are unfaithful to Mammon, he and all his adherents will
accuse you, and ye will be put out of his service. What will ye
do? If ye would secure a place in the kingdom of God, if ye
would make friends now, while the goods of unrighteous Mammon
are at your control — friends to receive and welcome you to the
eternal dwellings of light — ye must imitate the prudent foresight
of the unjust steward, and be unfaithful to Mammon in order to
be faithful servants of God.1
The scope and purport of the parable, as evidenced by the com-
Geikie’s com- nients of Jesus (in verses 9-13), is thus set forth by
ment- Geikie: “By becoming my disciples you have identi¬
fied yourselves with the interest of another master than Mammon,
the god of this world — whom you have hitherto served — and have
before you another course and aim in life. You will be represented
to your former master as no longer faithful to him, for my service
is so utterly opposed to that of Mammon, that, if faithful to me,
you cannot be faithful to him, and he will, in consequence, assured¬
ly take your stewardship of this world’s goods away from you —
that is, sink you in poverty, as I have often said. I counsel you,
therefore, so to use the goods of Mammon — the wordly means still
at your command — that by a truly worthy distribution of them to
1 Meyer remarks : “ This circumstance, that Jesus sets before his disciples the pru¬
dence ol a dishonest proceeding as an example, would not have been the occasion of
such unspeakable misrepresentations and such unrighteous judgments if the princi¬
ple, Ye cannot serve God and Mammon, (verse 13), had been kept in view, and it had
been considered accordingly that even the disciples, in fact, by beneficent application
of their property, must have acted unfaithfully toward Mammon in order to be faith¬
ful toward their contrasted master, toward God.” — Commentary, in loco.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
301
your needy brethren — and my disciples are mostly poor — you may
make friends for yourselves, who, if they die before you, will wel¬
come you to everlasting habitations in heaven, when you pass thith¬
er, at death. Fit yourselves, by labours of love and deeds of true
charity, as my followers, to become fellow citizens of the heavenly
mansions with those whose wants you have relieved while they
were still in life. If you be faithful thus, in the use of your pos¬
sessions on earth, you will be deemed worthy by God to be en¬
trusted with infinitely greater riches hereafter. ... Be assured
that if you do not use your earthly riches faithfully for God, by
dispensing them as I have told you, you will never enter my heav¬
enly kingdom at all. You will have shown that you are servants
of Mammon, and not the servants of God; for it is impossible for
any man to serve two masters.” 1
There is a deep inner connexion between the parable of the un¬
just steward and that of the rich man and Lazarus, narrated in the
same chapter (Luke xvi, 19-31). A wise faithfulness toward God
in the use of the mammon of unrighteousness will make friends to
receive us into eternal mansions. But he who allows himself, like
the rich man, to become the pampered, luxury-loving man of the
world — so true and faithful to the interests of Mammon that he
himself becomes an impersonation and representative of the god of
riches — will in the world to come lift up his eyes in torments, and
learn there, too late, how he might have made the angels and Abra¬
ham and Lazarus friends to receive him to the banquets of the
paradise of God.
It is interesting and profitable to study the relation of the par¬
ables to each other, where there is a manifest logical connexion.
This we noticed in the seven parables recorded in Matt. xiii. It is
more conspicuous in Luke xv, where the joy over the recovery of
that which was lost is enhanced by the climax : (1) a lost sheep, and
one of a hundred; (2) a lost drachma, and one out of ten; (3) a lost
child, and one out of two. The parables of the ten virgins and the
talents in Matt, xxv, enjoin, (1) the duty of watching for the com¬
ing of the Lord, and (2) the duty of 'working for him in his absence.
But we have not space to trace the details. The principles and
methods of interpreting parables, as illustrated in the foregoing
pages, will be found sufficient guides to the interpretation of all
the scriptural parables.
1 Geikie, Life of Christ, chap. liii.
302
PRINCIPLES OP
CHAPTER XIV.
INTERPRETATION OP ALLEGORIES.
An allegory is usually defined as an extended metaphor. It bears
the same relation to the parable which the metaphor doe?
Allegorytobe x ... „ .
distinguished to the simile. In a parable there is either some formal
from Parable. comparison introduced, as “The kingdom of heaven is
like a grain of mustard seed,” or else the imagery is so presented
as to be kept distinct from the thing signified, and to require an
explanation outside of itself, as in the case of the parable of the
sower (Matt, xiii, 3, ff.). The allegory contains its interpretation
within itself, and the thing signified is identified with the image ;
as “I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman” (John
xv, 1); “Ye are the salt of the earth” (Matt, v, 13). The allegory
is a figurative use and application of some supposable fact or his¬
tory, whereas the parable is itself such a supposable fact or history.
The parable uses words in their literal sense, and its narrative never
transgresses the limits of what might have been actual fact. The
allegory is continually using words in a metaphorical sense, and
its narrative, however supposable in itself, is manifestly fictitious.
Hence the meaning of the name, from the Greek dXXog, other , and
ayopev co, to speak, to proclaim ; that is, to say another thing from
that which is meant, or, so to speak, that another sense is expressed
than that which the words convey. It is a discourse in which the
main subject is represented by some other subject to which it has a
resemblance.1 2
Some have objected to calling an allegory a continued metaphor.3
Allegory is a Who shall say, they ask, where the one ends and the
continued Met- other begins? But the very definition should answer
apbor. this question. When the metaphor is confined to a
single word or sentence it is improper to call it an allegory ; just
as it is improper to call a proverb a parable, although many a pro¬
verb is a condensed parable, and is sometimes loosely called so in
the Scriptures (Matt, xv, 14, 15). But when it is extended into a
1 “The allegory,” says Oremer, “is a mode of exposition which does not, like the
parable, hide and clothe the sense in order to give a clear idea of it ; on the contrary,
it clothes the sense in order to hide it.” — Biblico-Theol. Lex. N. Test., p. 96.
2 See Davidson’s Hermeneutics, p. 306, and Horne’s Introduction, vol. ii, p. 338.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
303
narrative, and its imagery is drawn out in many details and analo¬
gies, yet so as to accord with the one leading figure, it would he
improper to call it a metaphor. It is also affirmed by Davidson
that in a metaphor there is only one meaning, while the allegory
has two meanings, a literal and a figurative.1 It will be seen, how¬
ever, on careful examination, that this statement is misleading.
Except in the case of the mystic allegory of Gal. iv, 21-31, it will
be found that the allegory, like the metaphor, has but one meaning.
Take for example the following from Psalm lxxx, 8-15 :
8 A vine from Egypt thou hast torn away ;
Thou hast cast out the heathen, and planted it;
9 Thou didst clear away before it,
And it rooted its roots,
And it filled the land.
10 Covered were the mountains with its shade,
And its branches are cedars of God.
11 It sent out its boughs unto the sea,
And unto the river its tender shoots.
12 Wherefore hast thou broken down its walls,
And have plucked it all that pass over the road ?
13 Swine from the forest are laying it waste,
And creatures of the field are feeding on it.
14 O God of hosts, return now,
Look from heaven, and behold,
And visit this vine ;
15 And protect what thy right hand has planted,
And upon the son thou madest strong for thyself.
Surely no one would understand this allegory in a literal sense.
No one supposes for a moment that God literally took a vine out of
Egypt, or that it had an actual growth elsewhere as here described.
The language throughout is metaphorical, but being thus continued
under one leading figure of a vine, the whole passage becomes an
allegory. The casting out of the heathen (verse 8) is a momentary
departure from the figure, but it serves as a clue to the meaning of
all the rest, and after verse 15 the writer leaves the figure entirely,
but makes it clear that he identifies himself and Israel with the
1 Hermeneutics, p. 306. This writer also says: “The metaphor always asserts or
imagines that one object is another. Thus, ‘Judah is a lions whelp (Gen. xlix, 9),
‘ I am the vine’ (John xv, 1). On the contrary, allegory never affirms that one thing
is another, which is in truth an absurdity.” But the very passage he quotes from
John xv, 1, as a metaphor, is also part of an allegory, which is continued through six
verses, showing that allegory as well as metaphor may affirm that one thing is another.
The literal meaning of the word allegory , as shown above, is the affirming one thing
for another.
804
PRINCIPLES OF
vine. The same imagery is given in the form of a parable in Isa.
v, 1-6, and the distinction between the two is seen in this, that the
meaning of the parable is given separately at the close (verse 7),
but the meaning of the allegory is implied in the metaphorical use
of its words.
Having carefully distinguished between the parable and the alle¬
gory, and shown that the allegory is essentially an extended meta¬
phor, we need no separate and special rules for the interpretation
of the allegorical portions of the Scriptures. The same
neuticai prin- general principles that apply to the interpretation ot
AUegory as to metaphors and parables will apply to allegories. The
Pambie. great error to be guarded against is the effort to find
minute analogies and hidden meanings in all the details of the
imagery. Hence, as in the case of parables, we should first deter¬
mine the main thought intended by the figure, and then interpret
the minor points with constant reference to it. The context, the
occasion, the circumstances, the application, and often the accom¬
panying explanation, are, in each case, such as to leave little doubt
of the import of any of the allegories of the Bible. The following
passage from Prov. v, 15-18 serves to exhibit what a variety of in¬
terpretations may attach to a single allegory :
15 Drink waters from thine own cistern,
And streams from the midst of thine own well.
16 Shall thy fountains spread abroad
Brooks of water in the streets?
17 Let them be for thee, by thyself,
And not for strangers with thee.
* 18 Let thy spring be blest,
And have joy of the wife of thy youth.
Our first inquiry should be as to the main purpose of the alle-
. gory. A clue to this is furnished in the words “wife
Main purpose of ° J .
the allegory to of thy youth m verse 18, from which we might inter,
be first sought. •£ we had llothing ejse to gUj(je llg> that by the cistern,
well, etc., mentioned before, this wife is to be understood. But
others have understood the well to mean the word of God as given
in the Law (Jerome, Rashi), others true wisdom (C. B. Michaelis),
others one’s own possessions in goods and estate (Junius, Cornelius
k Lapide). In view of this variety of opinions, we need something
more than the single allusion to the wife of one’s youth in order to
determine the application of the allegory. But when we further
observe that the entire preceding part of the chapter is a warning
against the strange woman, and the subsequent part continues in
the same vein, it becomes very evident that the allegory of verses
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
305
15-18 is designed to enjoin and extol connubial fidelity and love, as
against illicit intercourse. This is made more certain by the lan¬
guage of verse 19, immediately following, in which the figure
changes, and the youthful wife is called “ a lovely hind and a grace¬
ful roe,” which metaphor serves as an elegant transition to further
warning against the evil woman. The great majority of inter¬
preters, therefore, ancient and modern, have adopted this view.
Hence we observe the importance of consulting the context in order
to determine the main purpose of an allegory.
But having determined the main point we proceed to particulars,
and first inquire what fitness there is in comparing a Particular al_
wife to a fountain of waters. Umbreit answers: “The lusions to be
wife is appropriately compared with a fountain, not light of main
merely inasmuch as offspring are born of her, but also PurPose*
because she satisfies the desire of the man. In connexion with this
we must call to mind, in order to feel the full power of the figure,
how in antiquity, and especially in the East, the possession of a
spring was regarded as a great and even sacred thing.” 1 This be¬
ing accepted, we next observe that there are five different Hebrew
words here used for a water source, which we have translated re¬
spectively by cistern, well, fountain, brook, and spring. Any at¬
tempt to find in each of these words a special metaphorical allusion
would be pressing particulars too far, and would lead to confusion
and folly. Familiarity with the usages of Hebrew parallelism2 will
show that these different but synonymous terms are used for the
sake of variety and rhetorical effect, and are not to be pressed in
the interpretation. The meaning of the first couplet (verse 15),
therefore, is : Be content with the waters that are thine own ; find
thy delight and satisfaction in them, and go not abroad to meddle
with the wells and cisterns of other people. That is, as the context
has shown, be satisfied and happy with thy own lawful wife, as with
a precious living fountain of thine own possession, and go not in the
way of the strange woman.
Verse 16 has been translated variously; (l) affirmatively: “ thy
fountains shall spread abroad;” (2) imperatively: “let thy foun¬
tains spread abroad;” (3) interrogatively, as in our version above.
Some, without any authority, have inserted the negative particle,
and rendered, “ thy fountains shall not be spread abroad ’ (Ewald,
Bertheau, Stuart). This bold effort to amend the text was evi¬
dently prompted by the feeling that the affirmative and impel ative
renderings (1 and 2 above) made the author contradict himself.
For he has just said, Drink of thine own well, and in verse 17 he
1 Commentar uber die Spriiche, in loco. 2 Compare above, pp. 95-99.
20
306
PRINCIPLES OF
adds, Let thy fountains be for thyself alone, and not for strangers
also. How could he then say that these fountains should spread
and become rivulets in the streets ? Many of the older interpret¬
ers, taking the sentence affirmatively or imperatively, understood
the fountains spreading abroad and becoming brooks in the streets
as indicating a numerous progeny that should go forth and be hon¬
oured in public life. Comp. Num. xxiv, 7; Psa. lxviii, 26; Isa.
xlviii, 1; li, 1. But this conception of the passage would seriously
confuse the figure, break its unity, and be impossible to harmonize
naturally with verse 17. All this difficulty is avoided by adopting
the interrogative form of translation: “Shall thy fountains spread
abroad, (and become) brooks of water in the streets?” Wouldst
thou have thy wife go abroad as a public harlot? Nay, (but as
verse 17 adds) let her be for thyself alone, and not for strangers
with thee. In these last two verses (16 and 17), however, some
give the thought a more general turn, as: “Shall the fountains at
which thou drinkest be such as are common to all in the street ? ”
But it gives greater unity to the entire allegory to keep in mind
the one particular wife ‘definitely referred to at the close (verse 18),
and suppose the question to imply that as one would not have
his own wife become a harlot of the street, so he should keep him¬
self only unto her as one that drinks of his own well.
The allegory of old age, in Eccles. xii, 3-7, under the figure of a
Allegory of old ^ouse about to fall in ruins, has been variously inter-
age 1a Eccles. preted. Some of the fathers (Gregory Thaumaturgus,
Cyril of Jerusalem) understood the whole passage as
referring to the day of judgment as connected with the end of
the world. Accordingly, “ the day ” of verse 3 would be “ the great
and terrible day of the Lord” (Joel ii, 31; comp. Matt, xxiv, 29).
Other expositors (IJmbreit, Elster, Ginsburg) regard the passage as
describing the approach of death under the figure of a fearful
tempest which strikes the inmates of a noble mansion with conster¬
nation and terror. But the great majority of expositors, ancient and
modern, have understood the passage as an allegorical description
of old age. And this view, we may safely say, is favoured and even
required by the immediate context and by the imagery itself. But
we lose much of its point and force by understanding it of old age
generally. It is not a truthful portraiture of the peaceful, serene,
honoured, and “good old age ” so much extolled in the Old Testa¬
ment. It is not the picture presented to the mind in Prov. xvi, 31:
“A crown of glory is the hoary head; in the way of righteousness
will it be found;” nor that of Psa. xcii, 12-14, where it is declared
that the righteous shall flourish like the palm, and grow great like
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
307
the Lebanon cedars; “they shall still bear fruit in hoary age;
fresh and green shall they be.” Comp, also Isa. xl, 30, 31. It re¬
mains for us, then, with Tayler Lewis, to understand that “the
picture here given is the old age of the sensualist. This appears,
too, from the connexion. It is the ‘ evil time,’ the ‘ day of dark¬
ness’ that has come upon the youth who was warned in the lan¬
guage above, made so much more impressive by its
tone of forecasting irony. It is the dreary old age of S^heseisS
the young man who would ‘ go on in every way of his ist*
heart and after every sight of his eyes,’ who did not ‘keep remorse
from his soul nor evils from his flesh,’ and now all these things are
come upon him, with no such alleviations as often accompany the
decline of life. Such also might be the inference from the words
with which the verse begins: ‘Remember thy Creator while the
evil days come not.’ It expresses this and more. There is a nega¬
tive prohibitory force in the fto IV: So remember Him that the
evil days come not — implying a warning that such coming will be a
consequence of the neglect. Piety in youth will prevent such a
realizing of this sad picture; it will not keep off old age, but it will
make it cheerful and tolerable instead of the utter ruin that is here
depicted.” 1
Passing now to the particular figures used, we should exercise
the greatest caution and care, for some of the allusions Doubtful aiiu-
seem almost to be enigmatical. Barely to name the sions-
different interpretations of the several parts of this allegory would
require many pages.2 But the most judicious and careful interpret¬
ers are agreed that the “keepers of the house” (verse 3) are the
arms and hands, which serve for protection and defence, but in de¬
crepit age become feeble and tremulous. The “ strong men ” are
the legs, which, when they lose their muscular vigour, become
bowed and crooked in supporting their wearisome load. “ The
grinders,” or rather grinding maids (nLnb fern, plural in allusion to
the fact that grinding with hand mills was usually performed by
women), are the teeth, which in age become few and cease to per¬
form their work. “ Those that behold in the windows ” are the
eyes, which become dim with years. Beyond this point the inter¬
pretations become much more various and subtle. “The doors into
the street” (verse 4) are generally explained of the mouth, the two
lips of which are conceived of as double doors (Heb. or a
door consisting of two sides or leaves. But it would seem better
to understand these double doors of the two ears, which become
1 American edition of Lange’s Commentary on Ecclesiastes, pp. 152, 163.
2 See Poole’s Synopsis, in loco.
308
PRINCIPLES OF
shut up or closed to outer sounds. So Hengstenberg explains it,
and is followed by Tayler Lewis, who observes: “The old sensual¬
ist, who had lived so much abroad and so little at home, is shut in
at last. With no propriety could the mouth be called the street
door , through which the master of the house goes abroad. ... It
is rather the door to the interior, the cellar door, that leads down
to the stored or consumed provision, the stomach.” 1 The “ sound
of the grinding ” is by many referred to the noise of the teeth in
masticating food; but this would be a return to what has been suf¬
ficiently noticed in verse 3. Better to understand this sound of the
mill as equivalent to “the most familiar household sounds,” as the
sound of the mill really was. The thought then connects naturally
with what precedes and follows; the ears are so shut up, the hear¬
ing has become so dull, that the most familiar sounds are but faint¬
ly heard,2 “ and,” he adds, “ it rises to the sound of the sparrow ; ”
that is, as most recent critics explain, the “ sound of the grinding ”
rises to that pf a sparrow’s shrill cry, and yet this old man’s organs
of hearing are so dull that he scarcely hears it. Others explain
this last clause of the wakefulness of the old man: “he rises up at
the voice of the sparrow.” Thus rendered, we need not, as many,
understand it of rising or waking up early in the morning (in which
case the Hebrew word “ViJ? rather than D^p should have been used),
but of restlessness. Though dull of hearing, he will, nevertheless,
at times start and rise up at the sound of a sparrow’s shrill note.
“ The daughters of song ” may be understood of the women singers
(chap, ii, 8) who once ministered to his hilarity, but whose songs
can now no longer charm him, and they are therefore humbled.
But it is, perhaps, better to understand the voice itself, the various
tones of which become low and feeble (comp, the use of nn^ in Isa.
&xix, 4).
As we pass to verse 5 we note the peculiar nature of allegory to
The allegory interweave its interpretation with its imagery. The
Iri^with^Tm- %ure a house is for the time abandoned, and we
agery- read : “ Also from a height they are afraid, and terrors
are in the way, and the almond disgusts, and the locust becomes
heavy, and the caperberry fails to produce effect; for going is the
1 Lange’s Commentary on Ecclesiastes (Am. ed.), p. 155.
* There was hardly any part of the day or night when this work was not going on
with its ceaseless noise. It was, indeed, a sign that the senses were failing in their
office when this familiar, yet very peculiar, sound of the grinding had ceased to arrest
the attention, or had become low and obscure —
When the hum of the mill is faintly heard,
And the daughters of song are still— Ibid., p. 156.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
309
man to his everlasting house, and round about in the street pass the
mourners.” That is, looking down from that which is high, the tot¬
tering old man quickly becomes dizzy and is afraid; terrors seem
to be continually in his path (comp. Prov. xxii, 13; xxvi, 13); the
almond is no longer pleasant to his taste, but, on the contrary, dis¬
gusts; 1 and the locust, once with him perhaps a dainty article of
food (Lev. xi, 22; Matt, iii, 4; Mark i, 6), becomes heavy and
nauseating in his stomach, and the caperberry no longer serves its
purpose of stimulating appetite.
In verse 6 we meet again with other figures which have a nat¬
ural association with the lordly mansion. The end of life is repre¬
sented as a removing (pm) or sundering of the silver cord and a
breaking of the golden lampbowl. The idea is that of a golden lamp
suspended by a silver cord in the palatial hall, and suddenly the bowl
of the lamp is dashed to pieces by the breaking of the cord. The
pitcher at the fountain and the wheel at the cistern are similal1
metaphors referring to the abundant machinery for drawing water
which would be connected with the mansion of a sumptuous Dives.
These at last give out, and the whole furniture and machinery of
life fall into sudden ruin. The explaining of the silver cord as the
spinal marrow, and the golden bowl as the brain, and the fountain
and cistern as the right and left ventricles of the heart, seems too
far fetched to be safe or satisfactory. Such minute and ramified
explanations of particular figures are always likely to be overdone,
and generally confuse rather than illustrate the main idea which
the author had in mind. The words of verse V show that the met¬
aphors of verse 6 refer to the utter breaking down of the functions
and processes of life. The pampered old body falls a pitiable ruin,
in view of which Koheleth repeats his cry of “ vanity of vanities.”
In the interpretation of an allegory so rich in suggestions as
the above, the great hermeneutical principles to be Herrneneuticai
carefully adhered to are, first, to grasp the one great principles to be
idea of the whole passage, and, second, to avoid the rvt
1 Hiphil of pjO, and meaning to came disgmt , or is despised. The old ver¬
sions and most interpreters render shall flourish, deriving the form from and
understand the silvery hair of the old man as resembling the almond-tree, which
blossoms in winter, and its flowers, which at first are roseate in colour, become white
like snowflakes before they fall off. But, aside from this doubtful derivation of the
form (Stuart affirms that “ pfcO1 for has no parallel in Hebrew orthogra¬
phy ”), the immediate connexion is against the introduction of such an image as the
silvery hair of age in this place. The hoary head can only be thought of as a crown
of glory — a beautiful sight ; but to introduce it between the mention of the old man s
fears and terrors on the one side, and the disturbing locust on the other, would make
a most unhappy confusion of images.
310
PRINCIPLES OP
temptation of seeking manifold meanings in the particular figures.
By the minute search for some special significance in every allusion
the mind becomes wearied and overcrowded with the particular
illustrations, so as to be likely to miss entirely the great thought
which should be kept mainly in view.
The work of the false prophets in Israel, and the ruin of both it
Ruin of false an^ them, are set forth allegorically in Ezek. xiii, 10-15.
prophets aiie- The people are represented as building a wall, and the
Ezek. xiii, 10- prophets as plastering it over with ?2Pi, a sort of coat-
lo* ing or whitewash (comp. Matt, xxiii, 27; Acts xxiii, 3),
designed to cover the worthless material of which the wall is
built, and also to hide its unsafe construction. Ewald observes
that this word (^n) denotes elsewhere what is absurd intellect¬
ually, what is inconsistent with itself ; here the mortar which does
not hold together, clay without straw, or dry clay.1 The mean¬
ing of these figures is very clear. The people built up vain hopes,
and the false prophets covered them over with deceitful words and
promises; they “saw vanity and divined a lie” (verses 7 and 9).
The ruin of wall and plastering and plasterers is announced by Je¬
hovah’s oracle as fearfully effected by an overwhelming rain of
judgment; the rain is accompanied by falling hailstones and a vio¬
lent rushing tempest; all these together hurl wall and plastering to
the ground, expose the false foundations, and utterly destroy the
lying prophets in. the general ruin. Here we have, in the form of
an allegory, or extended metaphor, the same image, substantially,
which our Lord puts in the form of a simile at the close of the ser¬
mon on the mount (Matt, vii, 26, 27).2
The much-disputed passage in 1 Cor. iii, 10-15, is an allegory.
Allegory of In the preceding context Paul represents himself and
wise amaster- Apollos as the ministers through whom the Corinth-
buiiding. ians had believed. “ I planted, Apollos watered;
but God gave the increase” (ver. 6). He shows his appreci¬
ation of the honour and responsibility of such ministry by saying
(ver. 9): “For we (apostles and ministers like Paul and Apollos)
1 Die Propheten des Alten Bundes, vol. ii, p. 399. Gottingen, 1868.
2 The prophecies of Ezekiel abound in allegory. Chapter xvi contains an allegor¬
ical history of Israel, representing, by way of narrative, prophecy, and promise, th*
past, present, and future relations of God and the chosen people, and maintaining
throughout the general figure of the marriage relation. Under like imagery, in chap¬
ter xxiii, the prophet depicts the idolatries of Samaria and Jerusalem. Compare also
the similitudes of the vine wood and the vine in chapters xv and xix, 10-14, and the
allegory of the lioness and her whelps in xix, 1-9. The allegorical history of As¬
syria, in chapter xxxi, may also be profitably compared and contrasted with the enig¬
matical fable of chapter xvii.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
311
are God’s fellow workers,” and then he adds: “God’s tilled field
(y supyiov, in allusion to, and in harmony with, the planting and
watering mentioned above), God’s building, are ye.” Then drop¬
ping the former figure, and taking up that of a building (ohtodofirj),
be proceeds:
According to the grace of God which was given unto me, as a wise arch¬
itect, I laid a foundation, and another is building thereon. But let each
man take heed how he builds thereon. For other foundation can no man
lay than the one laid, which is Je*us Christ. But if any one builds on the
foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; each man’s
work shall be made manifest, for the day will make it known, because in
fire it is revealed, and each man’s work, of what sort it is, the fire itself
will prove. If any one’s work shall endure which he built thereon, he
shall receive reward. If any one’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer
loss, but he himself shall be saved, yet so as through fire.
The greatest trouble in explaining this passage has been to deter¬
mine what is meant by the “ gold, silver, precious' stones,
, , ’ . 1 ’ Are tlie mato-
wood, nay, stubble, in verse 12. According to the rials persons or
majority of commentators these materials denote cloc - doctllnes-
trines supposed to be taught in the Church.1 Many others, how¬
ever, understand the character of the persons brought into the
Church.2 But the most discerning among those who understand
doctrines , do not deny that the doctrines are such as interpen¬
etrate and mould character and life; and those who understand
persons are as ready to admit that the personal character of those
referred to would be influenced and developed by the doctrines of
their ministers. Probably in this, as in some other Scripture,
where so many devout and critical minds have differed, Both vlews al_
the real exposition is to be found in a blending of both iowabie.
views. The Church, considered as God’s building, is a frequent
figure with Paul (comp. Eph. ii, 20-22; Col. ii, 7; also 1 Peter ii, 5),
and in every case it is the Christian believer who is conceived as
builded into the structure. So here Paul says to the Corinthians,
“Ye are God’s building,” and it comports fully with this figure to
understand that the material of which this building is to be con¬
structed consists of persons who accept Christ in faith. The
Church is builded of persons, not of doctrines, but the persons are
not brought to such use without doctrine. As in the case of Peter,
1 So Clemens Alexandrinus, Ambrosiaster, Lyra, Cajetan, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Cal¬
vin, Piscator, Grotius, Estius, Calovius, Lightfoot, Stolz, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Ileiden-
reich, Neander, De Wette, Ewald, Meyer, Hodge, Alford, and Kling.
2 So, substantially, Origen, Chrysostom, Photius, Theodoret, Theophylact, Augustine,
Jerome, Billroth, Bengel, Pott, and Stanley.
812
PRINCIPLES OF
the stone (Matt, xvi, 18), the true material of which the abiding
Church is built, is not the doctrine of Christ, or the confession of
Christ put forth by Peter, nor yet Peter considered as an individual
man (nerpo^), but both of these combined in Peter confessmg — a
believer inspired of God and confessing Christ as the Son of the
living God — thus making one new man, the ideal and representa¬
tive confessor (ttetqcl),1 so the material here contemplated consists of
persons made and fashioned into various character through the in¬
strumentality of different ministers. These ministers are admon¬
ished that they may work into God’s building “ wood, hay, stubble,”
worthless and perishable stuff, as well as “gold, silver, precious
stones.” The material may be largely made what it is by the doc¬
trines taught, and other influences brought to bear on converts by
the minister who is to build them into the house of God, but is it
not clear that in such case the doctrines taught are the tools of the
workman rather than the material of which he builds ? Neverthe¬
less, this process of building (err ourodogel) on the foundation already
laid, like the work of Apollos in watering that which was planted
by Paul (ver. 6), is to be thought of chiefly in reference to the re¬
sponsibility of the ministers of the Gospel. The great caution is:
“ Let each man (whether Apollos or Cephas, or any other minister)
take heed how he builds thereon” (ver. 10). Let him take heed to
the doctrine he preaches, the morality he inculcates, the discipline
he maintains, and, indeed, to every influence he exerts, which goes
in any way to mould and fashion the life and character of those
who are builded into the Church. The gold, silver, and precious
stones, according to Alford, “ refer to the matter of the minister’s
teaching, primarily, and by inference to those whom that teaching
penetrates and builds up in Christ, who should be the living stones
of the temple. So also Meyer: “The various specimens of
building materials, set side by side in vivid asyndeton, denote the
various matters of doctrine propounded by teachers and brought
into connexion with faith in Christ, in order to develop and com¬
plete the Christian training of the Church.”3 These statements
contain essential truth, but they are, as we conceive, misleading, in
so fai as they exalt matters of doctrine alone. We are rather to
think of the whole administration and work of the minister in mak¬
ing converts and influencing their character and life. The mate¬
rials are rather the Church members, but considered primarily as
made, or allowred to remain what they are by the agency of the
minister who builds the Church.
xSee on this subject above, pp. 228, 229. 2 Greek Testament, in loco.
8 Critical Commentary on Corinthians, in loco.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS. 818
The great thoughts in the passage, then, would be as follows :
On the foundation of Jesus Christ, ministers, as fellow The passage
workers with God, are engaged in building up God’s paraphrased,
house. But let each man take heed how he builds. On that
foundation may be erected an edifice of sound and enduring sub¬
stance, as if it were built of gold, silver, and precious stones (as, for
instance, costly marbles); the kind of Christians thus “builded to¬
gether for a habitation of God in the Spirit” (Eph. ii, 20) will con¬
stitute a noble and enduring structure, and his work will stand the
fiery test of the last day. But on that same foundation a careless
and unfaithful workman may build with unsafe material; he may
tolerate and even foster jealousy, and strife (ver. 3), and pride
(iv, 18); he may keep fornicators in the Church without sorrow or
compunction (v, 1, 2); he may allow brother to go to law against
brother (vi, 1), and permit drunken persons to come to the Lord’s
Supper (xi, 21) all these, as well as heretics in doctrine (xv, 12),
may be taken up and used as materials for building God’s housed
In writing to the Corinthians the apostle had all these classes of
persons in mind, and saw how they were becoming incorporated
into that Church of his own planting. But he adds: The day of
the Lord’s judgment will bring every thing to light, and put to the
test every man’s work. The fiery revelation will disclose what
sort of work each one has been doing, and he that has builded wise¬
ly and soundly will obtain a glorious reward; but he that has
brought, or sought to keep, the wood, hay, stubble, in the Church
— he who has not rebuked jealousy, nor put down strife, nor ex¬
communicated fornicators, nor faithfully administered the discipline
of the Church — shall see his life-work all consumed, and he himself
shall barely escape with his life, as one that is saved by being has¬
tened through the fire of the burning building. His labour will all
have been in vain, though he assumed to build on Christ, and did
in fact minister in the holy place of his temple.
It is to be especially kept in mind that this allegory is intended
to serve rather as a warning than to be understood as The allegory a
a prophecy. As the parable of the labourers in the toa^^proph-
vineyard (Matt, xix, 27-xx, 16) is spoken against Pe- ecy.
ter’s mercenary spirit, and thus serves as a warning and rebuke
rather than as a prophecy of what will actually take place in the
judgment, so here Paul warns those who are fellow labourers with
God to take heed how they build, lest they involve both themselves
and others in irreparable loss. We are not to understand the wood,
’In his parable of the tares and the wheat (Matt, xiii, 24-30, 37-43) Jesus himself
taught that the good and the evil would be mixed together in the Church.
314
PRINCIPLES OF
hay, stubble, as the profane and ungodly, who have no faith in
Christ. Nor do these words denote false, anti-Christian doc¬
trines. They denote rather the character and life-work of those
who are rooted and grounded in Christ, but whose personal char¬
acter and work are of little or no worth in the Church. All such
persons, as well as the ministers who helped to make them such,
will suffer irreparable loss in the day of the Lord J esus, although
they themselves may be saved. And this consideration obviates
the objection made by some that if the work which shall be burned
(ver. 15) are the persons brought into the Church, it is not to be
supposed that the ministers who brought them in shall be saved.
The final destiny of the persons affected by this work is, no doubt,
necessarily involved in the fearful issue, but for their ruin the care¬
less minister may not have been solely responsible. He may be
saved, yet so as through fire, and they be lost. In chapter v, 5,
Paul enjoins the severest discipline of the vile fornicator “ in order
that the spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord.” But a
failure to administer such discipline would not necessarily have in¬
volved the final ruin of those commissioned to administer it; they
would “ suffer loss,” and their final salvation would be “ as through
fire.” So, on the other hand, the work which the wise architect
builds on the true foundation (ver. 14), and which endures, is not so
much the final salvation and eternal life of those whom he brought
into the Church and trained there as the general character and re¬
sults of his labour in thus bringing them in and training them.
We thus seek the true solution of this allegory in carefully dis¬
tinguishing between the materials put into the building and the
loork of the builders, and, at the same time, note the essential
blending of the two. The wise builder will so teach, train, and dis¬
cipline the church in which he labours as to secure excellent and
permanent results. The unwise will work in bad material, and
have no regard for the judgment which will test the work of all.
In thus building, whether wisely or unwisely, the persons brought
into the church and the ministerial labour by which they are taught
and disciplined have a most intimate relation ; and hence the essen¬
tial truth in both the expositions of the allegory which have been
so widely maintained.
Another of Paul’s allegories occurs in 1 Cor. v, 6-8. Its imagery
Allegory of is based upon the well-known custom of the Jews of re-
l cor. v, 6-8. moving all leaven from their houses at the beginning of
the passover week,1 and allowing no leaven to be found there during
1 The allusion may have been suggested by the time of the year when the epistle
was written, apparently (chap, xvi, 8) a short time before Pentecost, and, therefore,
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
315
the seven days of the feast (Exod. xii, 15-20 ; xiii, 7). It also as¬
sumes the knowledge of the working of leaven, and its nature to
communicate its properties of sourness to the whole kneaded mass.
Jesus had used leaven as a symbol of pharisaic hypocrisy (Matt,
xvi, 6, 12; Mark viii, 15; Luke xii, 1), and the power of a little
leaven to leaven the whole lump had become a proverb (Gal. v, 9 ;
comp. 1 Cor. xv, 33). All this Paul constructs into the following
allegory :
Know ye not that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Purge out
the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, even as ye are unleavened.
For our passover, also, has been sacrificed, even Christ; wherefore let us
keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and
wickedness, but with the unleavened loaves of sincerity and truth.
The particular import and application of this allegory are to be
found in the context. The apostle has in mind the case
of the incestuous person who was tolerated in the church 7116 context*
at Corinth, and whose foul example would be likely to contaminate
the whole Church. He enjoins his immediate expulsion, and ex¬
presses amazement that they showed no humiliation and grief in
having such a stain upon their character as a church, but seemed
rather to be puffed up with self-conceit and pride. “Not goodly, ”
not seemly or beautiful ( ov kclXov ), he says, “is your paraphrase of.
glorying ” (navxrlliai ground of glorying). Sadly out of the passage,
place your exultation and boast of being a Christian church with
such a reproach and abuse in your midst. Know ye not the com¬
mon proverb of the working of leaven? The toleration of such
impurity and scandal in the Christian society will soon corrupt the
whole body. Purge out, then, the old leaven. Cast off and put
utterly away the old corrupt life and habits of heathenism. You
know the customs of the passover. “You know how, when the
lamb is killed, every particle of leaven is removed from every
household; every morsel of food eaten, every drop drunk in that
feast, is taken in its natural state. This is the true figure of your
condition. You are the chosen people, delivered from bondage;
you are called to begin a new life, you have had the lamb slain for
you in the person of Christ. Whatever, therefore, in you corre¬
sponds to the literal leaven, must be utterly cast out ; the perpetual
passover to which we are called must be celebrated, like theirs, un¬
contaminated by any corrupting influence.” 1
with the scenes of the passover, either present or recent, in his thoughts. — Stanley on
the Epistles to the Corinthians, in loco.
1 Stanley on Corinthians, in loco.
316
PRINCIPLES OF
In such an allegory care should be taken to give the right mean-
ing to the more important allusions. The old leaven in
portant aiiu- verse 7 is not to be explained as referring directly to
Stans. the incestuous person mentioned in the context. It has
a wider import, and denotes, undoubtedly, all corrupt habits and im¬
moral practices of the old heathen life, of which this case of incest
was but*one notorious specimen. The leaven in the Corinthian
church was not so much the person of this particular offender, as
the corrupting influence of his example, a residuum of the old unre¬
generate state. So “ the leaven of the Pharisees ” was not the per¬
sons, hut the doctrine and example of the Pharisees. Furthermore,
the words “ even as ye are unleavened ” are not to be taken literally
(as Rosenmtiller, Wieseler, and Conybeare), as if meaning “even
as ye are now celebrating the feast of unleavened bread.” Such a
mixing of literal and allegorical significations together is not to be
assumed unless necessary. If such had been the apostle’s design
he would scarcely have used the word unleavened (atyfioi) of per¬
sons abstaining from leavened bread. Nor is it supposable that
the whole Corinthian church, or any considerable portion of them,
observed the Jewish passover. And even if Paul had been observ¬
ing this feast at Ephesus at the time he wrote this epistle (chap,
xvi, 8), it would have been some time past when the epistle reached
Corinth, so that the allusion would have lost all its pertinency and
effect. But Paul here uses unleavened figuratively of the Corinth¬
ians considered as a “new lump;” for so the words used imme¬
diately before and after imply.
The vivid allegory of the Christian armour and conflict, in Eph.
Allegory of the v*> furnishes its own interpretation, and is espe-
christian ar- cially notable in the particular explanations of the dif¬
ferent parts of the armour. It appropriates the figure
used in Isa. lix, 17 (comp, also Rom. xiii, 12; 1 Thess. v, 8), and
elaborates it in great detail. Its several parts make up ryv rravo-
ttX'klv rov Qeov , “ the whole armour (panoply) of God,” the entire
outfit of weapons, offensive and defensive, which is supplied by
God. The enumeration of the several parts shows that the apostle
has in mind the panoply of a heavy-armed soldier, with which the
dwellers in all provinces of the Roman Empire must have been suf¬
ficiently familiar. The conflict (y naXrj, a life and death struggle)
is not against blood and flesh (weak, fallible men, comp. Gal. i, 16),
but against the organized spiritual forces of the kingdom of dark¬
ness, and hence the necessity of taking on the entire armour of
God, which alone can meet the exigencies of such a wrestling. The
six pieces of armour here named, which include girdle and sandals,
BTBLTCAL HERMENEUTICS.
317
are sufficiently explained by the writer himself, and ought not, in
interpretation, to be pressed into all possible details of comparison
which corresponding portions of ancient armour might be made to
suggest. Here, as in Isa. lix, 17, righteousness is represented as a
breastplate, but in 1 Thess. v, 8, faith and love are thus depicted.
Here the helmet is salvation — a present consciousness of salvation
in Christ as an actual possession — but in 1 Thess. v, 8 it is the hope
of salvation. Each allusion must be carefully studied in the light
of its own context, and not be too widely referred. For the same
figure may be used at different times for different purposes.1
The complex allegory of the door of the sheep and of the good
shepherd, in John x, 1-16, is in the main simple and self- Allegory of
interpreting. But as it involves the twofold comparison John*, l-ie.
of Christ as the door and the good shepherd, and has other allu¬
sions of diverse character, its interpretation requires particular care,
lest the main figures become confused, and non-essential points
be made too prominent. The passage should be divided into two
parts, and it should be noted that the first five verses are a pure
allegory, containing no explanation within itself. It is observed, in
verse 6, that the allegory (tt agoLpia) was not understood by those to
whom it was addressed. Thereupon Jesus proceeded (verses 7-16)
not only to explain it, but also to expand it by the addition of other
images. He makes it emphatic that he himself is “ the door of the
sheep,” but adds further on that he is the good shepherd, ready to
give his life for the sheep, and thus distinguished from the hireling
who forsakes the flock and flees in the hour of danger.
The allegory stands in vital relation to the history of the blind
man who was cast out of the synagogue by the Phari- 0ccaslonand
sees, but graciously received by Jesus. The occasion and scope of the
scope of the whole passage cannot be clearly apprehended allegory*
without keeping this connexion constantly in mind. Jesus first
1 Meyer appropriately observes : “ The figurative mode of regarding a subject can
by no means, with a mind so many-sided, rich, and versatile as that of St. Paul, be so
stereotyped that the very same thing which he has here viewed under the figure of
the protecting breastplate, must have, presented itself another time under this very
same figure. Thus, for example, there appears to him, as an offering well pleasing to
God, at one time Christ (Eph. v, 2), at another the gifts of love received (Phil, iv, 18),
at another time the bodies of Christians (Rom. xii, 1); under the figure of the seed-
corn, at one time the body becoming buried (1 Cor. xv, 36), at another time the moral
conduct (Gal. vi, 7) ; under the figure of the leaven, once moral corruption (1 Cor. v, 6),
another time ^doctrinal corruption (Gal. v, 9) ; under the figure of clothing which is
put on, once the new man (Eph. iv, 24), another time Christ (Gal. iii, 27), at another
time the body (2 Cor. v, 3), and other similar instances.”— Critical Commentary on
Ephesians, in loco.
318
PRINCIPLES OF
contrasts himself, as the door of the sheep, with those who acted
rather the part of thieves and robbers of the flock. Then, when
ihe Pharisees fail to understand him, he partly explains his mean¬
ing, and goes on to contrast himself, as the good shepherd, with
those who had no genuine care for the sheep committed to their
charge, but, at the coming of the wolf, would leave them and
flee. At verse 17 he drops the figure, and speaks of his willing¬
ness to lay down his life, and of his power to take it again. Thus
the whole passage should be studied in the light of that pliarisaical
opposition to Christ which showed itself to be selfish and self-seek¬
ing, and ready to do violence when met with opposition. These
pharisaical Jews, who assumed to hold the doors of the synagogue,
and had agreed to thrust out any that confessed Jesus as the Christ
(chap, ix, 22), were no better than thieves and robbers of God’s
flock. Against these the allegory was aimed.
Keeping in view this occasion and scope of the allegory, we next
Import Of par- inquire into the meaning of its principal allusions,
ticuiar parts. « The fold of the sheep ” is the Church of God’s people,
who are here represented as his sheep. Christ himself is the door,
as he emphatically affirms (verses 7, 9), and every true shepherd,
teacher, and guide of God’s people should recognize him as the
only way and means of entering into the fold. Shepherd and sheep
alike should enter through this door. “ He that enters in through
the door is a shepherd 1 2 of the sheep ” (ver. 2) ; not a thief, nor a
robber, nor a stranger (ver. 5). He is well known to all who have
any charge of the fold, and his voice is familiar to the sheep. A
stranger’s voice, on the contrary, is a cause of alarm and flight.3
Such, indeed, were the action and words of those Jewish officials
toward the man who had received his sight. He perceived in their
words and manner that which was strange and alien to the truth of
God (see chap, ix, 30-33).
So far all seems clear, but we should be less positive in finding
other special meanings. The porter, or doorkeeper (dvpcjpog, ver.
3), has been explained variously, as denoting God (Calvin, Bengel,
Tholuck), or the Holy Spirit (Theodoret, Stier, Alford, Lange), or
even Christ (Cyril, Augustine), or Moses (Chrysostom), or John
Baptist, (Godet). But it is better not to give the word any such
1 Not the shepherd , as the English version renders it oipr/v here. This has led to a
mixture of figures by supposing Christ to be referred to. In this first simple allegory
Christ is only the door ; further on, where the figure is explained, and then enlarged,
he appears also as the good shepherd (verses 11, 14).
2 For a description of the habits and customs of oriental shepherds, see especially,
Thomson, The Land and the Book, vol. i, p. 301. New York, 1858.
319
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
remarkable prominence in the interpretation. The porter is rather
an inferior servant of the shepherd. He opens the door to him
when he comes, and is supposed to obey his orders. We should,
therefore, treat this word as an incidental feature of the allegory'
legitimate and essential to the figure, but not to be pressed into any
special significance. The distinction made by some between “ the
sheep ” and “ his own sheep ” in verse 3, by supposing that several
fiocks were accustomed to occupy one fold, and the sheep of each
particular flock, which had a separate shepherd, are to be under¬
stood by “his own sheep,” may be allowed, but ought not to be
urged. It is as well to understand the calling his own sheep by
name as simply a special allusion to the eastern custom of giving
particular names to favourite sheep. But we may with propriety
understand the leading them out (egayei avra , ver. 3), and putting
forth all his oion (ra Idea ndvra enpakrj, ver. 4), as an intimation of
the exodus of God’s elect and faithful ones from the fold of the old
Testament theocracy. This view is maintained by Lange and Godet,
and is suggested and warranted by the words of Jesus in verses
14-16.
The language of Jesus in defining his allegory and expanding its
imagery (verses 7-16) is in some points enigmatical.
•T-, , , ii- i • , Jesus’ explana-
Jb or he would not make things too plain to those who, tion somewhar
like the Pharisees, assumed to see and know so much enismatlcal-
(comp. chap, ix, 39-41), and he uses the strong words, which seem
to be purposely obscure: “All as many as came before me are
thieves and robbers ” (ver. 8). He would prompt special inquiry
and concern as to what might be meant by coming before him , a
procedure so wrong that he likens it to the stealth of a thief and
the rapacity of a robber. Most natural is it to understand the com¬
ing before me , in verse 8, as corresponding with the climbing up
some other toay , in verse 1, and meaning an entrance into the fold
other than through the door. But it is manifestly aimed at those
who, like these Pharisees, by their action and attitude, assumed to
be lords of the theocracy, and used both deceit and violence to ac¬
complish their own will. Hence it would seem but proper to
give the words before me (ngd eyov, ver. 8) a somewhat broad and
general significance, and not press them, as many do, into the one
sole idea of a precedence in time. The preposition npo is often used
of place, as before the doors, before the gate, before the city (comp.
Acts v, 23; xii, 6, 14; xiv, 13) and may here combine with the
temporal reference of rjhtiov, came , the further idea of position in
front of the door. These Pharisees came as teachers and guides of
the people, and in such conduct as that of casting out the man born
320
PRINCIPLES OF
blind, they placed themselves in front of the true door , shutting up
the kingdom of heaven against men, and neither entering them¬
selves nor allowing others to enter through that door (comp. Matt,
xxiii, 13). All this Jesus may have intended by the enigmatical
came before me. Accordingly, the various explanations, as “ instead
of me,” “ without regard to me,” “ passing by me,” and “ pressing
before me,” have all a measure of correctness. The expression is
to be interpreted, as Lange urges, with special reference to the
figure of the door. “ The meaning is, All who came before the door
(t rpd rrj<; dvgag rjldov). With the idea of passing by the &oor this
other is connected :>he setting of themselves up for the door; that is,
all who came claiming rule over the conscience as spiritual lords.
The time of their coming is indicated to be already past by the
fjXdov, not however by the npo, forasmuch as the positive npo does
not coincide with the temporal one. . . . At the same time empha¬
sis is given to the fjhdov. They came as though the Messiah had
come; there was no room left for him. It is not necessary that we
should confine our thought to those who were false Messiahs in the
stricter sense of the term, since the majority of these did not ap¬
pear until after Christ. Every hierarch prior to Christ was pseudo-
Messianic in proportion as he was anti-Christian; and to covet rule
over the conscience of men is pseudo-Christian. Be it further ob¬
served that the thieves and robbers, who climb over the wall, ap¬
pear in this verse with the assumption of a higher power. They
stand no longer in their naked selfishness, they lay claim to posi¬
tive importance, and that not merely as shepherds, but as the door
itself. Thus the hierarchs had just been attempting to exercise
rule over the man who was born blind.” 1
The import of the other allusions and statements of this passage
is sufficiently clear, but in a thorough and elaborate treatment of
the whole subject the student should compare the similar allegories
which are found in Jer. xxiii, 1-4; Exek. xxxiv; Zech. xi, 4-17;
and also the twenty-third Psalm. So also the allegory of the vine
and its branches, John xv, 1-10 2 — an allegory like that of the door
and the shepherd peculiar to John — may be profitably compared
1 Lange’s Commentary on John, in loco.
2 According to Lange (on John xv, 1) “Jesus’ discourse concerning the vine is
neither an allegory nor a parable, but a parabolic discourse, and that a symbolical
one.” But this is an over-refinement, and withal, misleading. The figures of some
allegories may be construed as symbols, and allegory and parable may have much in
common. But this figure of the vine, illustrating the vital and organic union between
Christ and believers, has every essential quality of the allegory, and contains its own
interpretation within itself.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
321
and contrasted with the psalmist’s allegory of the vine (Psa. Ixxx,
8-15) which we have already noticed.
The allegorizing process by which Paul, in Gal. iv, 21-31, makes
Hagar and Sarah illustrate two covenants, is an excep- Paul’s allegory
tional New Testament instance of developing a mysti- 3“ peculiar and
cal meaning from facts of Old Testament history. Paul exceptional,
elsewhere (Rom. vii, 1-6) illustrates the believer’s release from the
law, and union with Christ, by means of the law of marriage, ac¬
cording to which a woman, upon the death of her husband, is dis¬
charged from (KarripyrjTai) the law which bound her to him alone,
and is at liberty to become united to anothe^man. In 2 Cor. iii,
13-16, he contrasts the open boldness (napprjoia) of the Gospel
preaching with the veil which Moses put on his face purposely to
conceal for the time the transitory character of the Old Testament
ministration which then appeared so glorious, but was, nevertheless,
destined to pass away like the glory of his own God-lit face. He
also, in the same passage, makes the veil a symbol of the incapacity
of Israel’s heart to apprehend the Lord Christ. The passage of the
Red Sea, and the rock in the desert from which the water flowed,
are recognized as types of spiritual things (1 Cor. x, 1-4; comp.
1 Peter iii, 21). But all these illustrations from the Old Testament
differ essentially from the allegory of the two covenants. Paul
himself, by the manner and style in which he introduces it, evi¬
dently feels that his argument is exceptional and peculiar, and being
addressed especially to those who boasted of their attachment to
the law, it has the nature of an argumentum ad hominem . “ At the
conclusion of the theoretical portion of his epistle,” says Meyer,
“Paul adds a quite peculiar antinomistic disquisition — a learned
rabbinico-allegorical argument derived from the law itself — calcu¬
lated to annihilate the influence of the pseudo-apostles with their
own weapons, and to root them out of their own ground.” 1
We observe that the apostle, first of all, states the historical facts,
as written in the Book of Genesis, namely, that Abra- Historical facta
ham was the father of two sons, one by the bond worn- accepted as lit-
an, the other by the free woman; the son of the bond- erallyt,u8*
maid was born Kara, Capua , according to flesh , i. e., according to the
ordinary course of nature, but the son of the free woman was born
through promise, and, as the Scripture shows (Gen. xvii, 19; xviii,
10-14), by miraculous interposition. He further on brings in the
rabbinical tradition founded on Gen. xxi, 9, that Ishmael persecuted
(eSlome, ver. 29) Isaac, perhaps having in mind also some subsequent
aggressions of the Ishmaelites upon Israel, and then adds the words
1 Critical Commentary on Galatians, in loco..
21
322
PRINCIPLES OF
of Sarah, as written in Gen. xxi, 10, adapting them somewhat freely
to his purpose. It is evident from all this that Paul recognizes the
grammatico-historical truthfulness of the Old Testament narrative.
But, he says, all these historical facts are capable of being allegor¬
ized: a~Lva eoTiv dXXrjyopovgeva, which things are allegorical ; or a3
Ellicott well expresses it: “ All which things, viewed in their most
general light, are allegorical.” 1 He proceeds to allegorize the facts
referred to, making the two women represent the two covenants,
the Sinaitic (Jewish) and the Christian, and showing in detail how
one thing answers to, or ranks with (ovoTOixsi) another, and also
wherein the two covenants stand opposed. We may represent the
correspondences of his allegory as follows:
{ 1 Ilagar, bondmaid, =01d Covenant, cvoruixel , The present Jerusalem.
t 2 Sarah, free woman, = New Covenant,
^ I 3 Ishmael, child of flesh,
( 4 Isaac, child of promise,
5 Ishmael persecuted Isaac,
6 Scripture says: Cast out bondmaid and son,
Jerusalem above, our mother.
Those in bondage to the law.
We, Christian brethren (ver. 28).
So now legalists pers. Christians.
I say, (ver. 31 ; v, 1): Be not en¬
tangled in yoke of bondage.
The above tabulation exhibits at a glance six points of similitude
(on a line with the figures 1, 2, 3, etc.), and three sets of things con¬
trasted (as linked by the braces a , b, c). The general import of the
apostle’s language is clear and simple, and this allegorizing process
served most aptly both to illustrate the relations and contrasts of
the Law and the Gospel, and also to confound and silence the Juda-
izing legalists, against whom Paul was writing.
Here arises the important hermeneutical question, What inference
what authori- are we to draw from this example of an inspired apostle
allegorizing the facts of sacred history? Was it a fruit
pie of aiiegor- of his rabbinical education, and a sanction of that alle-
izmg? gorical method of interpretation which was prevalent,
especially among Jewish-Alexandrian writers, at that time?
That Paul in this passage treats historical facts of the Old Testa¬
ment as capable of being used allegorically is a simple matter of
fact. That he was familiar with the allegorical methods of ex¬
pounding the Scriptures current in his day is scarcely to be doubted.
That his own rabbinical training had some influence on him, and
coloured his methods of argument and illustration, there seems no
valid reason to deny. It is further evident that in his allegorical
use of Ilagar and Sarah he employs an exceptional and peculiar
method of dealing with his Judaizing opponents, and, so far as the
passage is an argument, it is essentially an argumentum ad hominem.
1 Commentary on Galatians, in loco.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
•323
But it is not merely an argument of that kind, as if it could have
no worth or force with any other parties. It is assumed to have an
interest and value as illustrating certain relations of the Law and
the Gospel.1 But its position, connexion, and use in this epistle to
the Galatians gives no sufficient warrant for such allegorical methods
in general. Schmoller remarks: “Paul to he sure allegorizes here,
for he says so himself. But with the very fact of his saying this
himself, the gravity of the hermeneutical difficulty disappears. He
means therefore to give an allegory, not an exposition; he does not
proceed as an exegete, and does not mean to say (after the manner
.of the allegorizing exegetes) that only what he now says is the true
sense of the narrative.”2 Herein especially consists the great dif¬
ference between Paul’s example and that of nearly all the alle-
gorists. He concedes and assumes the historical truthfulness of
the Old Testament narrative, but makes an allegorical use of it for
a special and exceptional purpose.3
1 According to Jowett, “it is neither an argument nor an illustration, but an inter¬
pretation of the Old Testament Scripture after the manner of the age in which he
lived ; that is, after the manner of the Jewish and Christian Alexandrian writers.
Whatever difference there is between him and them, or between Philo and the Chris¬
tian fathers, as interpreters of Scripture, is not one of kind, but of degree. The
Christian writers lay aside many of the extravagances of Philo ; St. Paul is free also
from their extravagances, employing only casually, and exceptionally, and when rea¬
soning with those ‘ who desire to be under the law,’ what they use habitually and un¬
sparingly, so as to overlay, and in some cases to destroy the original sense. Instead
of seeking to draw subtle distinctions between the method of St. Paul and that of his
age, probably of the school in which he was brought up, it is better to observe that
the noble spirit of the apostle shines through the ‘ elements of the law ’ in which he
clothes his meaning.” — The Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians, Galatians, etc.,
with Critical Notes and Dissertations, vol. i, p. 285. London, 1855.
2 Commentary on Galatians (Lange’s Biblework), in loco.
3 J. B. Lightfoot compares and contrasts Philo’s allegory of Hagar and Sarah, and
shows how the two move in different realms of thought, and yet have points of re¬
semblance as well as points of difference. He shows how, “ with Philo, the allegory
is the whole substance of his teaching; with St. Paul it is but an accessory.” He fur¬
nishes also, on the general subject, the following judicious and sensible remarks:
“ We need not fear to allow that St. Paul’s mode of teaching here is coloured by his
early education in the rabbinical schools. It were as unreasonable to stake the apos¬
tle’s inspiration on the turn of a metaphor or the character of an illustration or the
form of an argument, as on purity of diction. No one now thinks of maintaining that
the language of the inspired writers reaches the classical standard of correctness and
elegance, though at one time it was held almost a heresy to deny this. ‘A treasure con¬
tained in earthen vessels,’ ‘ strength made perfect in weakness,’ ‘ rudeness in speech,
yet not in knowledge,’ — such is the far nobler conception of inspired teaching which
we may gather from the apostle’s own language. And this language we should do
well to bear in mind.” — St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, Greek Text, Notes, etc.,
p. 3^0. Andover, 1881.
824
PRINCIPLES OF
Hence we may say, in general, that as certain other Old Testament
characters and events are acknowledged by Paul to have a typical
significance (see Rom. ix, 14; 1 Cor. x, 5), so he allows
ofaiiegorizing a like significance to the points specified in the history
allowable. 0f jjagar an(j Sarah. But he never for a moment loses
sight of the historical basis, or permits his allegorizing to displace it.
And in the same general way it may be allowable for us to alle¬
gorize portions of the Scripture, providing the facts are capable of
typical significance, and are never ignored and displaced by the
allegorizing process. Biblical characters and events may thus be
used for homiletical purposes, and serve for “ instruction in right¬
eousness;” but the special and exceptional character of such hand¬
ling of Scripture must, as in Paul’s example, be explicitly acknowl¬
edged. The apostle’s solitary instance is a sufficient admonition
that such expositions are to be indulged in most sparingly.
The allegorical interpretation of the Book of Canticles, adopted
Interpretation by all the older Jewish expositors and the great major-
Oi Canticles. Ry 0f Christian divines, is not to be lightly cast aside.
Where such a unanimity has so long prevailed, there is at least
the presumption that it is rooted in some element of truth. The
methods of procedure adopted by individual exegetes may all be
open to objection, while, at the same time, they may embody prin¬
ciples in themselves essentially correct.
The allegorists agree in making the pure love and tender rela-
Aiiegoricai tions of Solomon and Shulamith represent the relations
methods. Gf q.0(j an(j his people. But when they come to details
they differ most widely, each writer finding in particular passages
mystic or historical allusions, which, in turn, are disregarded or denied
by others. In fact, it can scarcely be said that any two allegorizing
minds have ever agreed throughout in the details of their exposi¬
tion. The Jewish Targum, which takes the bridegroom to be the
Lord of the world, and the bride the congregation of Israel, explains
the whole song as a picture of Israel’s history, from the exodus un¬
til the final redemption and restoration of the nation to the mountain
of Jerusalem.1 Aben-Ezra makes the song an allegorico-prophetic
history of Israel from Abraham onward. Origen and the Christian
allegorists generally make Christ the bridegroom and his Church
the bride. Some, however, explain all the allusions of the loving
intercourse between Christ and the individual believer, while others
treat the whole song as a sort of apocalypse, or prophetic picture of
the history of the Church in all ages. Ambrose, in a sermon on the
1 An English translation of the Targum of Canticles is given in Adam Clarke’s
Commentary, at the end of his notes on Solomon’s Song.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
335
perpetual virginity of the virgin Mary, represents Shulamith as
identical with Mary, the mother of God. But these are only some
of the more general types or outlines of exposition pursued by
the allegorists. Besides such leading differences there is an end¬
less and most confusing mass of special expositions. It is assumed
that every word must be explained in a mystic sense. The Targum,
for example, in chap, ii, 4, understands the bringing into the house
of wine as the Lord bringing Israel to the school of Mount Sinai
to learn the law from Moses. Aben-Ezra explains the coming of
the beloved, leaping over the mountains (chap, ii, 8), as Jehovah
descending upon Sinai and shaking the whole mountain by his
thunder. The Christian allegorists also find in every word and
allusion of the song some illustration of the “great mystery” of
which Paul speaks in Eph. v, 31-33, and some have carried the
matter into wild extravagance. Thus Epiphanius makes the eighty
concubines (vi, 8) prefigure eighty heresies of Christendom ; the
winter (ii, 11) denotes the sufferings of Christ, and the voice of the
turtle-dove (ii, 12) is the preaching of Paul. Hengstenberg makes
the hair of the bride, which is compared to a flock of goats that
leap playfully from Mount Gilead (iv, 1), signify the mass of the
nations converted to the Church, and Cocceius discovered in other
allusions the strifes of Guelphs and Ghibellines, the struggles of
the Reformation, and even particular events like the capture of
the elector of Saxony at Miihlberg ! And so the interpretation of
this book has been carried to the same extreme as that of John’s
Apocalypse.
Against the allegorical interpretation of Canticles we may urge
three considerations. First, the notable disagreement , .
7 b Objections to
of its advocates, as indicated above, and the constant the allegorical
tendency of their expositions to run into irrational metbod-
extremes. These facts warrant the inference that some fatal er¬
ror lies in that method of procedure. Secondly, the allegorists,
as a rule, deny that the song has any literal basis. The persons
and objects described are mere figures of the Lord and his people,
and of the manifold relations between them. This position throws
the whole exposition into the realm of fancy, and explains how, as
a matter of fact, each interpreter becomes a law unto himself.
Having no basis in reality, the purely allegorical interpretation
has not been able to fix upon any historical standpoint, or adopt
any common principles. Thirdly, the song contains no intimation
that it is an allegory. It certainly does not, like the other alle¬
gories of Scripture, contain its exposition within itself. Herein, as
we have shown above, the allegory differs from the parable, and to
326
PRINCIPLES OF
be self-consistent in allegorizing the song of songs we should either
adopt Paul’s method with the history of Sarah and Hagar, and, al¬
lowing a literal historical basis, say: All these things may be alle¬
gorized j or else we should call the song a parable, and, as in the
parable of the prodigal son, affirm that its imagery is true to fact
and nature and capable of literal explanation, but that it serves
more especially to set forth the mystic relation that exists between
God and his people.
Following, therefore, the analogy of Scripture we may more ap¬
propriately designate the Canticles as a dramatic par-
dramatic Par- able. It may or may not have had a literal historical
able- occasion, as the marriage of Solomon with Pharaoh’s
daughter (1 Kings iii, 1), or, as many think, with some beautiful
shepherd-maiden of Northern Palestine (comp. chap, iv, 8). In
either case the imagery and form of the composition are poetic and
dramatic, and, as in the book of Job, we are not to suppose a literal
narrative of persons actually addressing one another in such perfect
and ornamental style. Solomon is a well-known historical person,
and also, in Scripture, a typical character. Shulamith may have been
one of his wives. But the song of songs is a parable, and its leading
actors are, as in all parables, typical of others besides themselves.
The parable depicts in a most charming style the highest ideal of
pure connubial love, and “we cannot but believe that the writer
of this divine song recognized the symbolical character of that love,
which he has here embellished. . . . The typical character of Solo¬
mon’s own reign was well understood by himself, as appears from
Psalm lxxii. That the Lord’s relation to his people was conceived
of as a marriage from the time of the covenant at Sinai, is shown by
repeated expressions which imply it in the law of Moses. That, under
these circumstances, the marriage of the king of Israel should carry
the thought up by a ready and spontaneous association to the cov¬
enant-relation of the King par excellence to the people whom he had
espoused to himself, is surely no extravagant supposition, even if the
analogous instance of Psalm xlv did not remove it from the region
of conjecture to that of established fact. The mystical use made of
marriage so frequently in the subsequent scriptures, with evident
and even verbal allusion to this song, and the constant interpreta¬
tion of both the Synagogue and the Church, show the naturalness of
the symbol, and enhance the probability that the writer himself saw
what the great body of his readers have found in his production.” 1
1 Prof. W. H. Green, in American edition of Lange’s 0. T. Commentary, Introduc¬
tion, pp. 24, 25. This learned exegete adopts, along with Zockler, Delitzsch, and
some others, what he calls the typical method of interpreting the Canticles. “ I am
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
3:; 7
Accepting, then, the view that the song is of parabolic import,
we should avoid the extravagances of those allegorists who find a
spiritual significance in every word and metaphor. We should,
fiist of all, study to ascertain the literal sense of every passage.
First the natural, afterward that which is spiritual. The assump¬
tion of many that the literal sense involves absurdities and revolt¬
ing images is a grave error. Such writers seem to forget that “ the
work is an oriental poem, and the diction should therefore not be
taken as prose. It is the offspring of a luxuriant imagination
tinged with the voluptuousness characteristic of the eastern mind.
There love is warm and passionate even while pure. It deals in
colours and images which seem extravagant to the colder ideas of
the West.”1
Having apprehended the literal sense, we should proceed, as in a
parable, to define the general scope and plan of the entire song.
But remembering that the whole is poetry of the most highly orna¬
mented character, the particular descriptions of persons, scenes, and
events must not be supposed to have in every detail a spiritual or
mystic significance. The mention of spikenard, myrrh, and cypress
flowers (chap, i, 12-14), yields an intensified thought of fragrance,
and indicates the mutual attractiveness of the lovers, and their de¬
sire and care to please one another; and from this general idea it is
not difficult to infer similar relations between the Lord and his
chosen ones. But an attempt to find special meanings in the spike,
nard, and myrrh, and cypress flower, as if each allusion pointed to
some distinct feature of the economy of grace, would lead to certain
failure in the exegesis. The carping critics who have found fault
with the descriptions of the bodies of Solomon and Shulamith, and
condemned them as revolting to a chaste imagination, too readily
ignore the fact that from the historical standpoint of the ancient
writer these were the noblest ideals of the perfect human form, which,
according to the psalmist (Psa. cxxxix, 14), is “ fearfully and wonder¬
fully made.” The highly wrought eulogy of the person of the be¬
loved (chap, v, 10-16) gives a vivid idea of his surpassing beauty
and perfection, and, like John’s glowing vision of the Son of man
in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks (Rev. i, 13-16), may
well depict the glorious person of the Lord. But the description
must be taken as a whole, and not torn into pieces by an effort to
not sure,” he says, “ but the absence of the name of God, and of any distinctive relig¬
ious expressions throughout the song, is thus to be accounted for — that the writer,
conscious of the parabolic character of what he is describing, felt that there would be
an incongruity in mingling the symbol with the thing symbolized.”
1 Davidson, Introduction to the Old Testament, vol. ii, p. 404.
328
PRINCIPLES OF
find some separate attribute or doctrine of the Divine Person in
head, hair, eyes, etc. The same principle must be maintained in
explaining the description of the charmingly beautiful and perfect
form of Shulamith in chap, vii, 2-6. The allegorical interpreters
have been guilty of the most extravagant folly in spiritualizing
every part of that portraiture of womanly beauty. But, taken as a
whole, it may appropriately set forth, in type, the perfection and
beauty of “ a glorious Church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any
such thing” (Eph. v, 27).
CHAPTER XY.
PROVERBS AND GNOMIC POETRY.
The Old Testament Book of Proverbs has been appropriately called
„ , _ an Anthology of Hebrew gnomes.1 Its general form is
fined and de- poetic, and follows the usual methods ot Hebrew paral¬
lelism. The simpler proverbs are in the form of dis-
tichs,and consist of synonymous, antithetic and synthetic parallelisms,
as has been explained in a previous part of this work.2 But there
are many involved passages and obscure allusions, and the book
contains riddles, enigmas, or dark sayings (HTn, nYta), as well as
proverbs (bK'D). Many a proverb is also a condensed parable; some
consist of metaphors, some of similes, and some are extended into
allegories. In the interpretation of all scriptural proverbs it is im¬
portant, therefore, to distinguish between their substance and their
form.
The Hebrew word for proverb (^E>) is derived from the verb
which signifies to liken or compare. The same verb means also
to rule, or have dominion, and some have sought to trace a logical
connexion between the two significations; but, more probably, as
Gesenius suggests, two distinct and independent radicals have coa¬
lesced under this one form. The proverb proper will generally be
found, in its ultimate analysis, to be a comparison or similitude.
Thus, the saying, which became a proverb in Israel, “Is Saul
also among the prophets? ” arose from his prophesying after the
manner of the prophets with whom he came in contact (1 Sam. x,
10-12). The proverb used by Jesus in the synagogue of Nazareth,
1 Bruch’s Weisheitslehre der Hebraer, p. 104. Strasburg, 1851.
2 See above, pp. 95-99.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS. 329
Physician, heal thyself,” is a condensed parable, as, indeed, it is
there called (Luke iv, 23), and it would be no difficult task to en¬
large it into a parabolic narrative. Herein also we may see how
proverbs and parables came to be designated by the same word.
Ihe word napoifUa, adage , byword , expresses more nearly the later
idea commonly associated with the Hebrew bpv, and stands as its
representative in the Septuagint. In the New Testament it is used
m sense of adage, or common byword, in 2 Peter ii, 22, but in
John’s Gospel it denotes more especially an enigmatical discourse
(John x, 6; xvi, 15, 29).1
Proverbs proper are therefore to be understood as short, pithy
sayings, in which a wise counsel, a moral lesson, or a called Gnomic
suggestive experience, is expressed in memorable form. because of
o, ~ .r _ , pointed senti-
foucn sayings are often called gnomic because of their ment.
pointed and sententious form and force. “ The earliest ethical and
practical wisdom of most ancient nations,” observes Conant, “ found
expression in short, pithy, and pointed sayings. These embodied,
in few words, the suggestions of common experience, or of individ¬
ual reflection and observation. Acute observers and thinkers, ac¬
customed to generalize the facts of experience, and to reason from
first principles, were fond of clothing their results in striking apoph¬
thegms, conveying some instruction or witty reflection, some moral or
religious truth, a maxim of worldly prudence or policy, or a practi¬
cal rule of life. These were expressed in terms aptly chosen to
awaken attention, or inquiry, and reflection, and in a form that
fixed them indelibly in the memory. They thus became elements
of the national and popular thought, as inseparable from the men¬
tal habits of the people as the power of perception itself.” 1 “ Prov¬
erbs,” says another, “are characteristic of a comparatively early
stage in the mental growth of most nations. Men find in the outer
world analogies to their own experience, and are helped by them to
generalize and formulate what they have observed. A single start¬
ling or humorous fact fixes itself in their minds as the type to
which all like facts may be referred, as when men used the proverb,
‘Is Saul also among the prophets?’ The mere result of an induc¬
tion to which other instances may be referred fixes itself in their
minds with the charm of a discovery, as in ‘ the proverb of the an¬
cients, Wickedness proceedeth from the wicked ’ (1 Sam. xxiv, 13).
. . . Such proverbs are found in the history of all nations, gener¬
ally in their earlier stages. For the most part there is no record of
1 Comp, above, p. 265.
2 The Book of Proverbs, with Hebrew text, King James’ Yersion, and Revised Ver¬
sion, etc. For the American Bible Union. Introduction, p. 3. New York, 1872.
330
PRINCIPLES OF
their birth. No one knows their author. They find acceptance
among men, not as resting upon the authority of a reverend name,
but from their inherent truth, or semblance of truth.” 1
The biblical proverbs are not confined to the book which bears
_ . . .. that title. The Book of Ecclesiastes contains many a
Rules for the . J
interpretation gnomic sentence. Proverbs appear also in almost every
of proverbs. par£ 0£ scriptUres, and, from the definition and ori¬
gin of proverbs, as given above, it will be readily seen that much
care and discrimination may be often required for their proper ex¬
position. In such exposition the following observations will be
found of practical value and importance.
1. As proverbs may consist of simile, metaphor, parable, or alle-
niscrimination £017> the interpreter should, first of all, determine' to
of form and which of these classes of figures, if to any, the proverb
properly belongs. We have seen abo /e that Prov. v,
15-18, is an allegory. In Prov. i, 20; viii, 1; ix, 1, wisdom is per¬
sonified. Eccles. ix, 13-18, is a combination of parable and prov¬
erb, the parable serving to illustrate the proverb. Some proverbial
similes are of the nature of a conundrum, requiring us to pause and
study awhile before we catch the point of comparison. The same
is true of some proverbial expressions in which the comparison is
not formally stated, but implied. Thus, in Prov. xxvi, 8, “ As bind¬
ing a stone in a sling, so is he that gives honour to a fool.” Here
is a formal comparison, the point of wThich is not at first apparent,
but it soon dawns on the mind as we reflect that the binding fast of
a stone in a sling would of itself be a piece of folly. The next
verse is enigmatical: “A thornbush (nin) goes up in a drunkard’s
hand, and a proverb in the mouth of fools.” The distich implies a
comparison between the thornbush in the drunkard’s hand and a
proverb in the mouth of fools. But what is the point of compari¬
son ? The passage is obscure by reason of the uncertainty attach¬
ing to the word nin, which may mean thorn, thornlmsh, or thistle.
The authorized English version reads: “As a thorn goeth up into
the hand of a drunkard, so is a parable in the mouth of fools.”
Stuart renders: “As a thornbush which is elevated [riseth up, Zock-
ler] in the hand of a drunkard, so is a proverb in the mouth of a
fool,” and he explains as follows: “As a drunken man, who holds a
high thornbush in his hand, will be very apt to injure others or
himself, so a fool’s words will injure himself or others.”3 But Co-
nant translates and explains the passage thus: “A thorn comes up
1 Prof. Plumptre in the Speaker’s Commentary on Proverbs (Am. ed.). Introduc-
tion, p. 514.
2 Commentary on Proverbs, in loco.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
331
into the drunkard’s hand, so is a proverb in the mouth of fools. . . .
The drunkard’s hand, as he gropes around, blindly grasping at
whatever comes in his way, is pierced by a thorn. So fares the
fool when he awkwardly attempts to apply some sharp saying of
the wise.” The enigmatical character of the next verse we h ive
already noticed (p. 269). It is evident, therefore, from this variety
in the nature and style of proverbs, that the interpreter should be
able to determine the exact character of each proverbial passage
which he essays to explain.
2. Great critical and practical sagacity is also necessary both to
determine the character of a proverb and to apprehend Critical and
its scope and bearing. Many proverbs are literal state- practical sagac-
ments of fact, the results of observation and experience; ltJ'
as, “ A child is known by his doings, whether pure and whether
right his deed” (Prov. xx, 11). Many are simple precepts and
maxims of a virtuous life, or warnings against sin, which any one
can understand, as, “Trust in Jehovah with all thy heart, and upon
thine own understanding do not rely ” (Prov. iii, 5). “ In the path of
the wicked come thou not, and proceed not in the way of the evil ”
(Prov. iv, 14). But there are other proverbs that seem to defy all
critical sharpness and ingenuity, as, “To eat much honey is not
good, and to search out their glory is glory” (Prov. xxv, 27). The
last clause has been a puzzle to all exegetes. Some, as the Author¬
ized Version, carry over the negative particle from the preceding
sentence, and so make the author say the precise opposite of what
he does say. Others reject the usus loqueudi of the verb *ipn, to
search out, and, appealing to the corresponding Arabic root, make
the word mean to despise: “To despise their glory is glory.”
Others take the word 1133, glory, in its radical sense of weight: “ To
search into weighty matters is itself a weight; i. e., men scon be¬
come satiated with it as with honey ” (Plumptre). Zockler renders:
“ To search out the difficult bringeth difficulty ; ” Stuart: “ Search¬
ing after one’s own glory is burdensome.” Others suggest an emen¬
dation of the text. Amid such a diversity of possible constructions
the sagacious critic will be slow to venture a positive judgment.
He will consider how many such obscure sayings have arisen from
events now utterly forgotten. Their whole point and force may
have depended originally upon some incident like that of Saul
prophesying, or upon some provincial idiom. So, again, the myste¬
rious word in Prov. xxx, 15, translated horseleech in all the
ancient versions, and vampire by many modern exegetes, gives an
uncertainty to every exposition. Possibly here the text is corrupt,
and we may take the word Alukah as a proper name, like Agur in
332
PRINCIPLES OF
verse 1, and Lemuel in chap, xxxi, 1. Then we would supply some¬
thing, as, “Words of Alukah,” or, “Words which one spoke to
Alukah.” It will, at least, be granted that among so many prov¬
erbs as have been preserved to us in the Scriptures, several of which
were manifestly designed to puzzle, there are probably some which
can now be only conjecturally explained.
3. Wherever the context lends any help to the exposition of a
Context and proverb great deference is to be paid to it, and it is to
parallelism. be noted that in the Book of Proverbs, as in the other
Scriptures, the immediate context is, for the most part, a very safe
guide to the meaning of each particular passage. So, also, the
poetic parallelisms, in which this book is written, help greatly in
the exposition. The synonymous and the antithetic parallelisms,
especially, are adapted, by way of the analogies and contrasts they
furnish, to suggest their own meaning from within themselves.
Thus Prov. xi, 25: “The soul of blessing (liberal soul that is a
blessing to others) shall become fat (enriched), and he that waters
shall also himself be watered.” Here the second member of the
parallelism is a metaphorical illustration of the somewhat enigmat¬
ical sentiment of the first. So, again, in the antithetic parallelism
of Prov. xii, 24, each member is metaphorical, and the sense of each
is made clearer by the contrast: “The hand of the diligent shall
bear rule, but the slothful shall be under tribute.”
4. But there are passages in the Book of Proverbs where the con-
Oommon sense text a^or^s 110 certain or satisfactory help. There are
and sound judg- passages that seem at first self -contradictory, and we
are obliged to pause awhile to judge whether the
language be literal or figurative. “ There is,” says Stuart, “ scarce¬
ly any book which calls upon us so often to apply the golden mean
between literality on the one hand and flimsy and diffuse general¬
ity on the other.” 1 Especially must common sense and sound judg¬
ment be appealed to where other helps are not at hand. These are,
in all doubtful cases, to be our last resort to guard us against con¬
struing all proverbs as universal propositions. Prov. xvi, 7, ex¬
presses a great truth: “When Jehovah delights in the ways of a
man he makes even his enemies to be at peace with him.” But
there have been many exceptions to this statement, and many cases
to which it could apply only with considerable modification. Such,
to some extent, have been all cases of persecution for righteous¬
ness’ sake. So, too, with verse 13 of the same chapter: “Delight
of kings are lips of righteousness, and him that speaks right things
he will love.” The annals of human history show that this has not
1 Commentary on Proverbs. Introduction, p. 128.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
833
always been true; and yet the most impious kings understand the
value of upright counsellors. Prov. xxvi, 4 and 5, are contradictory
in form and statement, but, for reasons there given, both are at once
seen to be true: “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou
also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he
become wise in his own e.yes.” A man’s good sense and judgment
must decide how to answer in any particular case. Prov. vi, 30, 31,
has been supposed to involve an absurdity: “They do not despise
a thief when he steals to satisfy his soul when he is hungry; but if
found he shall restore sevenfold, the whole substance of his house
shall he give.” Theft is theft in any case, but if a man is so im¬
poverished as to steal to satisfy hunger, wherewithal, it is asked,
can he be made to restore sevenfold? Whence all that substance
of his house ? The absurdities here alleged arise from a lack of
knowledge of Hebrew sentiment and law. To begin with, the pas¬
sage is proverbial, and must be taken subject to proverbial limita¬
tions. Then the context must be kept in view, in which the writer
is aiming to show the exceeding wickedness of adultery. No one
shall be innocent, he argues, (ver. 29), who touches his neighbor’s
wife. A man who steals to satisfy the cravings of hunger is not
despised, for the palliating circumstances are duly considered; nev¬
ertheless. if discovered, even he is subject to the full penalty of the
law (comp. Exod. xxii, 1-4). The sevenfold is, doubtless, to be
taken idiomatically. His entire property shall be given up, if nec¬
essary, to make due restitution. All this of a thief under the cir¬
cumstances named. But an adulterer shall find even a worse judg¬
ment-blows, and shame, and reproach that may not be wiped away
(verses 32-35). As for the supposed absurdity of compelling a man
who has nothing to restore sevenfold, it arises from an absurdly
literal interpretation of the proverb. The sense evidently is, that
whatever the circumstances of the theft, if the thief be found, he
shall certainly be punished as the case may demand. A man might
own estates and yet steal to satisfy his hunger; or, if he owned no
property, he could be sold (Exod. xxii, 3) for perhaps more than
seven times the value of what he had stolen. So, also, in Eccles.
x, 2, it is at once evident that the language is not to be taken liter¬
ally, but metaphorically: “The heart of a wise man is on his right,
but the heart of a fool on his left.” The exact meaning of the
proverb, however, is obscure. Heart is probably to be taken for
the judgment or understanding, and the sentiment is that a wise
man has his understanding always at ready and vigorous command,
while the opposite is the case with the fool.
334
PRINCIPLES OF
CHAPTER XVI.
INTERPRETATION OP TYPES.
Types and symbols constitute a class of figures distinct from all
those which we have treated in the foregoing chapters;
bois defined and but they are not, properly speaking, figures of speech,
distinguished, rp^y resemk]e each other in being sensible representa¬
tions of moral and religious truth, and may be defined, in general,
as figures of thought in which material objects are made to convey
vivid spiritual conceptions to the mind. Crabb defines types and
symbols as different species of the emblem, and observes: “The
type is that species of emblem by which one object is made to
represent another mystically; it is, therefore, only employed in
religious matters, particularly in relation to the coming, the office,
and the death of our Saviour; in this manner the offering of Isaac’
is considered as a type of our Saviour’s offering himself as an
atoning sacrifice. The symbol is that species of emblem which is
converted into a constituted sign among men; thus the olive and
laurel are the symbols of peace, and have been recognized as such
among barbarous as well as enlightened nations.” 1 The symbols
of Scripture, however, rise far above the conventional signs in
common use among men, and are employed, especially in the apoc¬
alyptic portions of the Bible, to set forth those revelations, given
in visions or dreams, which could find no suitable expression in
mere words.
Types and symbols may, therefore, be said to agree in their gen-
Exampies of eral character as emblems, but they differ noticeably in
types and sym- special method and design. Adam, in his representa¬
tive character and relation to the human race, was a
type of Christ (Rom. v, 14). The rainbow is a symbol of the cove¬
nanted mercy and faithfulness of God (Gen. ix, 13-16; Ezek. i, 28;
Rev. iv, 3; comp. Isa. liv, 8-10), and the bread and wine in the
sacrament of the Lord’s Supper are symbols of the body and blood
of Christ. There are also typical events like the passage of the
Red Sea (1 Cor. x, 1—1 1), and symbolico-typical actions like Ahi-
jah’s rending his new garment as a sign of the rupture of the king¬
dom of Solomon (1 Kings xi, 29-31). In instances like the latter
1 English Synonymes, p. 531. New York, 1859.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
335
certain essential elements of both type and symbol become blended
in one and the same example. The Scriptures also furnish us with
examples of symbolical metals, names, numbers, and colours.
Certain analogies may be traced between types and symbols,
and several figures of speech. Symbols, being always Ana]ogy de¬
based upon some points of resemblance between them- tween types
selves and the things to be symbolized, correspond and cerSinflg-
somewhat closely with metonymy of the adjunct, or ures of speech,
metonymy of the sign and the thing signified (comp, above, pp.
249, 250). Then there are analogies between the simile, the par¬
able, and the type, on the one hand, and between the metaphor,
the allegory, and the symbol, on the other. Similes, parables, and
types have this in common, that a formal comparison is made or
assumed between different persons and events, and the language is
employed in its literal sense; but in metaphor, allegory, and sym¬
bol, the characteristic feature is that one thing is said or seen,
and another is intended. If we say “Israel is like a barren fig-
tree,” the sentence is a simile. In Luke xiii, 6-9, the same image
is expanded into a narrative, in the parable of the fruitless fig-tree.
But our Lord’s miracle of cursing the leafy but fruitless fig-tree
(Mark xi, 13, 14) was a symbolico-typical action, foreshadowing
the approaching doom of the Jewish nation. If, however, we
say “ Judah is an olive-tree,” we have a metaphor ; one thing
is * said to be another. But in Jer. xi, 16, 17, this metaphor is
extended into an allegory, and in Zech. iv, 3, two olive-trees are
symbols of Zerubbabel and Joshua,” the two anointed ones (He¬
brew, sons of oil) who stand by the Lord of all the earth” (ver. 14).
At the same time it is to be observed that as the metaphor differs
from the simile in being an implied rather than a formal compari¬
son, and as the allegory differs from the parable in a similar way —
saying one thing and meaning another— so the symbol differs from
the type in being a suggestive sign rather than an image of that
which it is intended to represent. The interpretation of a type re¬
quires us to show some formal analogy between two persons, ob¬
jects, or events; that of a symbol requires us rather to point out
the particular qualities, marks, features, or signs by means of which
one object, real or ideal, indicates and illustrates another. Mel-
chizedek is a type, not a symbol, of Christ, and Heb. vii fur¬
nishes a formal statement of the typical analogies. But the seven
golden candlesticks (Rev. i, 12) are a symbol, not a type, of the
seven churches of Asia. The comparison, however, is implied, not
expressed, and it is left to the interpreter to unfold it, and show the
points of resemblance.
PRINCIPLES OF
336
Besides these formal distinctions between types and symbols
there is the more radical and fundamental difference that while a
symbol may represent a thing either past, present, or future, a type
Natural dis- is essentially a prefiguring of something future from
ti notion be- ln the technical and theological sense a type is
and6 symbols.6 3 a figure or adumbration of that which is to come. It
is a person, institution, office, action, or event, by means of which
some truth of the Gospel was divinely foreshadowed undei the Old
Testament dispensations. Whatever was thus prefigured is called
the antitype.1 A symbol, on the other hand, has in itself no essen¬
tial reference to time . It is designed rather to represent some
character , office, or quality , as when a horn denotes either strength
or a king in whom strength is impersonated (Dan. vii, 24; viii, 21).
The origin of symbols has been supposed to be connected with the
history of hieroglyphics.2
“ The word type” observes Muenscher, “ is employed not only
e sentiai char *n *n philosophy, medicine, and other sci-
acteristics of ences and arts. In all these departments of knowledge
the type. the radical idea is the same, while its specific meaning
varies with the subject to which it is applied. Resemblance of
some kind, real or supposed, lies at the foundation in every case.
In the science of theology it properly signifies the preordained rep¬
resentative relation which certain persons , events , and institutions of
the Old Testament bear to corresponding persons , events , and institu¬
tions in the New” 3 Accordingly the type is always something real,
not a fictitious or ideal symbol. And, further, it is no ordinary fact
or incident of history, but one of exalted dignity and worth — one di¬
vinely ordained by the omniscient Ruler to be a foreshadowing of
the good things which he purposed in the fulness of time to bring
to pass through the mediation of Jesus Christ.4 Three things are,
1 It should be observed, however, that this word (l ivtItvkov ), as used in the New
Testament (Heb. ix, 24; 1 Peter iii, 21), is not equivalent to the technical sense of
antitype , or counterpart , as now used in theological literature. It has the more gen¬
eral meaning of image or likeness.
2 Comp. Warburton, Divine Legation of Moses, book iv, sect. iv.
3 Types and the Typical Interpretation of Scripture. Article in the American Bibo
lical Repository for January, 1841, p. 97.
4 In the New Testament the word ruvof, type , is applied variously, but always with
the fundamental idea of a figure or real form. In John xx, 25, it is used of the
print of the nails in the Saviour’s hands — visible marks which identified him as the
crucified. In Acts vii, 43, it denotes idolatrous images, and in verse 44, and Heb.
viii, 5, the pattern or model after which the tabernacle was made. In Acts xxiii, 25,
it denotes the form or style of a letter, and in Rom. vi, 17, a form of doctrine.
Comp. vTTOTV7ruaic in 2 Tim. i, 13. In Phil, iii, 17; 1 Thess. i, 7 ; 2 Thess. iii, 9;
1 Tim. iv, 12; Titus ii, 7 ; 1 Peter v, 8, the word is used in the sense of an example
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
337
accordingly, essential to make one person or event the type of
another.
1. There must be some notable point of resemblance or analog'
between the two. They may, in many respects, be to- U6eness ^
tally dissimilar. In fact it is as essential that there be uniikeness.
points of dissimilarity as that there be some notable analogy, other¬
wise we should have identity where only a resemblance is designed.
Adam, for instance, is made a type of Christ, but only in his head¬
ship of the race, as the first representative of humanity; and in
Rom. v, 14-20, and 1 Cor. xv, 45-49, the apostle notes more points
of unlikeness than of agreement between the two. Moreover, we
always expect to find in the antitype something higher and nobler
than in the type, for “ much greater honour than the house has he
who built it ” (Heb. iii, 3).
2. There must be evidence that the type was designed and ap¬
pointed by God to represent the thing typified. This Divinely ap-
proposition is maintained with great unanimity by the P°inted-
best writers on scriptural typology. “ To constitute one thing the
type of another,” says Bishop Marsh, “ something more is wanted
than mere resemblance. The former must not only resemble the
latter, but must have been designed to resemble the latter. It
must have been so designed in its original institution. It must
have been designed as something preparatory to the latter. The
type as well as the antitype must have been pre-ordained, and they
must have been pre-ordained as constituent parts of the same gen¬
eral scheme of divine providence.”1 “It is essential to a type,”
says Van Mildert, “in the scriptural adaptation of the term, that
there should be competent evidence of the divine intention in the
correspondence between it and the antitype — a matter not to be
left to the imagination of the expositor to discover, but resting on
or pattern of Christian character and conduct. But the more technical theological
sense of the word appears in Rom. v, 14, where Adam is called a “ type of him who
was to come.” On this passage Meyer remarks : “ The type is always something his¬
torical (a person, thing, saying) which is destined, in accordance with the divine plan
to prefigure something corresponding to it in the future — in the Connected scheme of
sacred historical teleology, which is to be discerned from the standpoint of the anti¬
type.” The word is used in the same sense in 1 Cor. x, 6 : “ These things (the ex¬
periences of the fathers, verses 1-5) became types of us.” That is, says Meyer, they
were “ historical transactions of the Old Testament, guided and shaped by God, and
designed by him, figuratively, to represent the corresponding relation and experience
on the part of Christians.” In verse 11 of the same chapter we have the word tvtti.-
k&c. typically , or, after the manner of type ; and it here bears essentially the same
sense as verse 6. “ These things came to pass typically with them ; and it was
written for our admonition upon whom the ends of the ages are come.”
1 Lectures on Sacred Criticism and Interpretation, p. 371. Lond., 1838.
22
338
PRINCIPLES OF
some solid proof from Scripture itself.” 1 But we should guard
against the extreme position of some writers who declare that noth¬
ing in the Old Testament is to be regarded as typical but what the
New Testament affirms to be so. We admit a divine purpose in
every real type, but it does not therefore follow that every such
purpose must be formally affirmed in the Scriptures.
3. The type must prefigure something in the future. It must
Foreshadowing serve in the divine economy as a shadow of things to
of the future, come (Col. ii, 17 ; Heb. x, 1). Hence it is that sacred
typology constitutes a specific form of prophetic revelation. The
Old Testament dispensations were preparatory to the New, and
contained many things in germ which could fully blossom only
in the light of the Gospel of Jesus. So the law was a school¬
master to bring men to Christ (Gal. iii, 24). Old Testament char¬
acters, offices, institutions, and events were prophetic adumbrations
of corresponding realities in the Church and kingdom of Christ.
The principal types of the Old Testament may be distributed into
five different classes, as follows :
1. Typical Persons. It is to be noted, however, that persons are
typical, not as persons, but because of some character or relation
which they sustain in the history of redemption. Adam was a type
Typical Per- °f Christ because of his representative character as tho
eons. first man, and federal head of the race (Rom. v, 14).
“ As through the disobedience of the one man the many were made
sinners, so also through the obedience of the one the many shall be
made righteous” (Rom. v, 19). “The first man Adam became a
living soul; the last Adam a life-giving spirit” (1 Cor. xv, 45).
Enoch may be regarded as a type of Christ, in that, by his saintly
life and translation he brought life and immortality to light to the
antediluvian world. Elijah the Tishbite was made, in the same
way, a type of the ascending Lord, and these two were also types
of God’s power and purpose to change his living saints, “ in a mo¬
ment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump” (1 Cor. xv, 52).
In the spirit and power of his prophetic ministry Elijah was also a
type of John the Baptist. Abraham’s faith in God’s word, and
consequent justification (Gen. xv, 6), while yet in uncircumcision
(Rom. iv, 10), made him a type of all believers who are justified by
faith “apart from works of law” (Rom. iii, 28). His offering of
Isaac, at a later date (Gen. xxii), made him a type of working faith,
showing how “a man is justified by works and not by faith only”
(James ii, 24). Typical relations may also be traced in Melchizedek,
Joseph, Mdses, Joshua, David, Solomon, and Zerubbabel.
Hampton Lectures for 1814, p. 239.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
339
2. Typical Institutions. The sacrificing of lambs and other ani¬
mals, the blood of which was appointed to make atone- Typical Instl_
ment for the souls of men (Lev. xvii, 11), was typical tutions.
of the offering of Christ, who, “ as a lamb without blemish and
without spot” (1 Pet. i, 19), was “once offered to bear the sins of
many” (Heb. ix, 28). The sabbath is a type of the believer’s ever¬
lasting rest (Heb. iv, 9). The provision of cities of refuge, into
which the manslayer might escape (Num. xxxv, 9-34), was typical
of the provisions of the Gospel by which the sinner may be saved
from death. The Old Testament passover was typical of the New
Testament eucharist, and the feast of tabernacles a foreshadowing of
the universal thanksgiving of the Church of the latter day (comp.
Zech. xiv, 16). The Old Testament theocracy itself was a type and
shadow of the more glorious New Testament kingdom of God.
3. Typical Offices. Every holy prophet of the Old Testament,
by being the medium of divine revelation, and a mes¬
senger sent forth from God, was a type of Christ. It Typical offices*
was in the office of prophet that Moses was a type of Jesus (Deut.
xviii, 15). The priests, and especially the high priest, in the per¬
formance of their priestly duties, were types of Him who through
his own blood entered into the holy place once for all, and thereby
obtained eternal redemption (Heb. iv, 14; ix, 12). Christ is also,
as king, the antitype of Melchizedek, wdio was king of righteous¬
ness and king of peace (Heb. vii, 2), and of David nnd Solomon,
and of every other of whom Jehovah might say, “I have set my
king upon my holy hill of Zion” (Psa. ii, 6). So the Lord Christ
unites in himself the offices of prophet, priest, and king, and fulfills
the types of former dispensations.
4. Typical Events. Under this head we may name the flood, the
exodus from Egypt, the soiourn in the wilderness, the
- A £ £ ^ , Typical Events,
giving of manna, the supply or water irom the rock,
the lifting up of the brazen serpent, the conquest of Canaan, and
the restoration from the Babylonish captivity. It is such events
and experiences as these, according to Paul (1 Cor. x, 11),. which
“ came to pass typically with them : and it was written for our ad¬
monition upon whom the ends of the ages are come.”
5. Typical Actions. These partake so largely of the nature of
symbols that we may appropriately designate them as
J _ _. . , J 11 r. . . , Typical Actions.
symbolico-typical, and treat them m a chapter by them¬
selves. So far as they were prophetic of things to come they were
types, and belong essentially to what we have defined as typical
events ; so far as they were signs (nintf, orjfiela), suggestive of lessons
of present or permanent value, they were symbols. The symbol
840
PRINCIPLES OF
may be a mere outward visible sign; the type always requires
the presence and action of an intelligent agent. So it should be
noted that typical characters, institutions, offices, or events are
such by bringing in the activity or service of some intelligent
agent. The brazen serpent, considered merely as a sign — an ob¬
ject to look to — was rather a symbol than a type; but the per¬
sonal agency of Moses in lifting up the serpent on a pole, and the
looking upon it on the part of the bitten Israelites, places the whole
transaction properly in the class of typical events; for as such it
was mainly a foreshadowing of things to come. The miracle of the
fleece, in Judges vi, 36-40, was not so much a type as a symbolical
sign, an extraordinary miraculous token, and our Lord cites the
case of Jonah, who was three days and three nights in the whale,
not only as a prophetic type of his burial and resurrection, but also
as a symbolical “sign” for that “evil and adulterous generation”
(Matt, xii, 39). The symbolico-typieal actions of the prophets are :
Isaiah’s walking naked and barefoot for three years (Isa. xx, 2-4) ;
Jeremiah taking and hiding his girdle by the Euphrates (Jer. xiii,
1-11); his going to the potter’s house and observing the work
wrought there (xviii, 1-6) ; his breaking the potter’s bottle in the
valley of Hinnom (xix) ; his putting a yoke upon his neck for a
sign to the nations (xxvii, 1-14; comp, xxviii, 10-17); and his hid¬
ing the stones in the brick-kiln (xliii, 8-13) ; Ezekiel’s portraiture
upon a brick of the siege of Jerusalem, and his lying upon his side
for many days (Ezek. iv) ; his cutting off his hair and beard, and
destroying it in different parcels (v) ; his removing the baggage,
and eating and drinking with trembling (xii, 3-20) ; his sighing
(xxi, 6, 7); and his peculiar action on the death of his wife (xxiv,
15-27); Hosea’s marrying “a wife of whoredoms and children of
whoredoms” (Hos. i), and his buying an adulteress (iii) ; and Zech-
ariah’s making crowns of silver and gold for the head of Joshua
(Zech. vi, 9-15).
The hermeneutical principles to be used in the interpretation of
Hermeneutical tyP68 are essentially the same as those used in the in-
principies to be terpretation of parables and allegories. Nevertheless,
in view of the peculiar nature and purpose of the scrip¬
tural types, we should be careful in the application of the following
principles :
1. The real point of resemblance between type and antitype
All real corre- should> first all, be clearly apprehended, and all far-
apondences to fetched and recondite analogies should be as carefully
avoided. It often requires the exercise of a very sober
discrimination to determine the proper application of this rule.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
341
Every real correspondence should be noted. Thus, the lifting up
of the brazen serpent, narrated in Num. xxi, 4-9, is one The brazen
of the most notable types of the Old Testament, and was serpent,
explained by Jesus himself as a prefiguration of his being lifted up
upon the cross (John iii, 14, 15). Three points of analogy are clear¬
ly traceable: (1) As the brazen serpent was lifted up upon a pole,
so Christ upon the cross. (2) As the serpent of brass was made,
by divine order, in the likeness of the fiery serpents, so Christ was
made in the likeness of sinful flesh (Rom. viii, 3) a curse for us
(Gal. iii, 13). (3) As the offenamg Israelites, bitten and ready to
die, looked unto the serpent of brass and lived, so sinful men, poi¬
soned by the old serpent, the devil, and ready to perish, look by
faith to the crucified Christ, and are made alive for evermore.
Other incidental analogies involved in one or another of these three
may be allowed, but should be used with caution. Thus, Bengel
says : “ As that serpent was one without venom placed over against
venomous serpents, so the man Christ, a man without sin, against
the old serpent.” 1 This thought may be incidentally included in anal-
ogy (2) above. Lange’s observation, however, seems too far-fetched
and mystical: “The fiery serpents in the wilderness were primarily
the form of a divine punishment, presented in a form elsewhere de¬
noting sin. The elevated serpent-standard was thus the type of
punishment lifted in the phantom of sin, and transformed into a
means of salvation. This is the nature of the cross. The look at
the cross is a look at the curse-laden One, who is not a sinner, but
a divine token of evil and penalty, and of the suffering of [a sub¬
stitute for] penalty which is holy, and therefore transformed into
deliverance.” 2 Such incidental analogies, as long as they adhere
consistently to the main points, may be allowed, especially in homi-
letical discourse. But to find in the brass— a metal inferior to gold
or silver — a type of the outward meanness of the Saviour’s appear¬
ance; or to suppose that it was cast in a mould, not wrought by
hand, and thus typified the divine conception of Christ’s human
nature ; or to imagine that it was fashioned in the shape of a cross
to depict more exactly the form in which Christ was to suffer —
these, and all like suppositions, are far-fetched, misleading, and to
be rejected.
In Hebrews vii the priesthood of Christ is illustrated and en¬
hanced by typical analogies in the character and position Melchizedefc
of Melchizedek. Four points of resemblance are there and Christ-
set forth. (1) Melchizedek was both king and priest; so Christ.
(2) His timelessness— being without recorded parentage, genealogy,
1 Gnomon, on John iii, 14. 2 Commentary on John, in loco.
842
PRINCIPLES OP
or death — is a figure of the perpetuity of Christ’s priesthood.
(3) Melchizedek’s superiority over Abraham and over the Levitical
priests is made to suggest the exalted dignity of Christ. (4) Mel¬
chizedek’s priesthood was not, like the Levitical, constituted by
formal legal enactment, but was without succession and without
tribe or race limitations; so Christ, an independent and universal
priest, abides forever, having an unchangeable priesthood. Much
more is said in the chapter by way of contrasting Christ with the
Levitical priests, and the manifest design of the writer is to set
forth in a most impressive way the great dignity and unchangeable
perpetuity of the priesthood of the Son of God. But interpreters
have gone wild over the mysterious character of Melchizedek, yield¬
ing to all manner of speculation, first, in attempting to answer the
question “ Who was Melchizedek'?” and second, in tracing all im¬
aginable analogies. Whedon observes sensibly and aptly: “Our
opinion is, that Melchizedek was nobody but himself; himself as
simply narrated in Gen. xiv, 18-20; in which narrative both David,
in Psa. cx, and our author after him, find every point they specify
in making him a king-priest, typical of the king-priesthood of
Christ. Yet it is not in the person of Melchizedek alone, but in the
grouping, also, of circumstances around and in his person, that the
inspired imagination of the psalmist finds the shadowing points.
Melchizedek, in Genesis, suddenly appears upon the historic stage,
without antecedents or consequents. He is a king-priest not of
Judaism, but of Gentilism universally. He appears an unlineal
priest, without father, mother, or pedigree. He is preceded and
succeeded by an everlasting silence, so as to present neither begin¬
ning nor end of life. And he is, as an historic picture, forever
there, divinely suspended, the very image of a perpetual king-priest.
It is thus not in his actual unknown reality, but in the Scripture
presentation , that the group of shadowings appears. It is by opti¬
cal truth only, not by corporeal facts, that he becomes a picture,
and with his surroundings a tableau, into which the psalmist first
reads the conception of an adumbration of the eternal priesthood
of the Messiah; and all our author does is to develop the particulars
which are in mass presupposed by the psalmist.” 1
2. The points of difference and of contrast between type and
Notable differ- antitype should also be noted by the interpreter.. The
tracts to beCobI tyPe from its very nature must be inferior to the anti¬
served. type, for we cannot expect the shadow to equal the
substance. “For,” says Fairbairn, “as the typical is divine truth
on a lower stage, exhibited by means of outward relations and
1 Commentary on New Testament, in loco.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
34:5
terrestrial interests, so, when making the transition from this to the
antitypical, we must expect the truth to appear on a loftier stage,
and, if wTe may so speak, with a more heavenly aspect. What in
the one bore immediate respect to the bodily life, must in the other
be found to bear immediate respect to the spiritual life. While in
the one it is seen and temporal objects that ostensibly present
themselves, their proper counterpart in the other is the unseen and
eternal . — there, the outward, the present, the worldly ; here, the
inward, the future, the heavenly.” 1
The New Testament writers dilate upon these differences between
type and antitype. In Heb. iii, 1-6, Moses, considered Moses and
as the faithful apostle and servant of God, is repre- Christ>
sented as a type of Christ, and this typical aspect of his character
is based upon the remark in Num. xii, 7, that Moses was faithful in
all the bouse of God. This is the great point of analogy, but the
writer immediately goes on to say that Jesus is “worthy of more
glory than Moses,” and instances two points of superiority: (1) Mo¬
ses was but a part of the house itself in which he served, but Jesus
is entitled to far greater glory, inasmuch as he may be regarded as
the builder of the house, and much greater honour than the house
has he who built or established it. Further (2), Moses was faithful
in the house as a minister (ver. 5), but Christ as a son over the
house. Still more extensively does this writer enlarge upon the
superiority of Christ, the great High Priest, as compared with the
Levitical priests after the order of Aaron.
In Rom. v, 14, Adam is declared to be “ a type of Him who was
to come,” and the whole of the celebrated passage, Ad am and
verses 12-21, is an elaboration of a typical analogy Christ*
which has force only as it involves ideas and consequences of the
most opposite character. The great thought of the passage is this:
As through the trespass of the one man Adam a condemning judg¬
ment, involving death, passed upon all men, so through the right¬
eousness of the one man, Jesus Christ, the free gift of saving
grace, involving justification unto life, came unto all men. But in
verses 15-17 the apostle makes prominent several points of distinc¬
tion in which the free gift is “ not as the trespass.” First, it differs
quantitively. The trespass involved the one irreversible sentence
of death to the many, the free gift abounded with manifold pro¬
visions of grace to the same many (rovg izoXXovg). It differs also
numerically in the matter of trespasses; for the condemnation fol¬
lowed one act of transgression, but the free gift provides for justi¬
fication from many trespasses. Moreover, the free gift differs
1 The Typology of Scripture, vol. i, p. 181. Philadelphia, 1867.
344
PRINCIPLES OF
qualitatively in its glorious results. By the trespass of Adam “ death
reigned ” — acquired domination over all men, even over those who
sinned not after the likeness of the transgression of Adam; but
through the one man, Jesus Christ, they who receive the abundance
of his saving grace will themselves reign in eternal life.
3. The Old Testament types are susceptible of complete interpre-
oid Testament tation only by the light of the Gospel. It has too often
hmfded oniyby keen hastily assumed that thq ancient prophets and
the Gospel. holy men were possessed of a full knowledge of tint
mysteries of Christ, and vividly apprehended the profound signifi¬
cance of all sacred types and symbols. That they at times had
some idea that certain acts and institutions foreshadowed better
things to come may be admitted, but according to Heb. ix, 7-12,
the meaning of the holiest mysteries of the ancient worship was
not manifest while the outward tabernacle was yet standing. And
not only did the ancient worshippers fail to understand those mys¬
teries, but the mysteries themselves — the forms of worship, “ the
meats, and drinks, and divers washings, ordinances of flesh, imposed
until a time of rectification” (dtopdwcrewf, straightening up)' were
unable to make the worshippers perfect. In short, the entire Mo¬
saic cultus was, in its nature and purpose, preparatory and peda¬
gogic (Gal. iii, 25), and any interpreter who assumes that the
ancients apprehended clearly what the Gospel reveals in the Old
Testament types, will be likely to run into extravagance, and in¬
volve himself in untenable conclusions.
We may appropriately add the following words of Cave: “Hav¬
ing apprehended that the divine revelation to the human race had
been made at successive times and by successive stages, the doc¬
trine of types gave utterance to the further apprehension that these
revelations were not incongruous and disconnected, but by numer¬
ous links, subtle in their location, and by concords prearranged?
were inseparably interwoven. To the belief that holy men had
spoken things beyond the limits of human thought, the doctrine of
types superadded or testified to the addition of the belief that
these holy men were moved by one Spirit, their utterances having
mysterious interconnexions with each other, this explaining that,
and that completing this. ... It is this community of system, this
fundamental resemblance under different forms, which the doctrine
of types aids us to apprehend. Nor, when once the conception of
the historical development of the Scriptures has been seized, is it
1 That is, says Alford, “ when all these things would be better arranged, the sub
stance put where the shadow was before, the sufficient grace where the insufficient
type.” Greek Testament on Heb. Lx, 10.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
345
any longer difficult to fix the precise significance of the type. Type
and antitype convey exactly the same truth, but under forms ap¬
propriate to different stages of development.” 1
It remains for us to inquire into the validity of the principle,
maintained by many writers, that only those persons Limitation of
and things are to be regarded as typical which are ex- types-
pressly declared to be such in the New Testament. A leading au¬
thority for this view is Bishop Marsh, who says: “ There is no
other rule by which we can distinguish a real from a pretended
type, than that of Scripture itself. There is no other possible
means by which we can know that a previous design and a pre¬
ordained connexion existed. Whatever persons or Bishop Marsh’s
things, therefore, recorded in the Old Testament, were dictum*
especially declared by Christ, or by his apostles, to have been de¬
signed as prefigurations of persons and things relating to the New
1 estament, such persons and things so recorded in the former are
types of the persons or things with which they are compared in
the latter. But if we assert that a person or thing was designed to
prefigure another person or thing, where no such prefiguration has
been declared by divine authority, we make an assertion for which
we neither Mve nor can have the slightest foundation. And
even when comparisons • are instituted in the New Testament be¬
tween antecedent and subsequent persons and things, we must be
careful to distinguish the examples, where a comparison is insti¬
tuted merely for the sake of illustration , from the examples where
such a connexion is declared as exists in the relation of a type to
its antitype.” 2
This principle, however, is altogether too restrictive for an ade¬
quate exposition of the Old Testament types. We Marsh’s rule too
should, indeed, look to the Scriptures themselves for narrow,
general principles and guidance, but not with the expectation that
every type, designed to prefigure Gospel truths, must be formally
announced as such. We might with equal reason demand that
every parable and every prophecy of Scripture must have inspired
and authoritative exposition. Such a rigid rule of interpretation
could scarcely have been adopted by so many excellent divines ex¬
cept under the pressure of the opposite extreme, which found hid¬
den meanings and typical lessons in almost every fact of Scripture.
The persons and events which are expressly declared by the sacred
1 The Scriptural Doctrine of Sacrifice, p. 157. Edinb., 1877.
2 Lectures on Sacred Criticism and Interpretation, p. 373. This extreme view is,
in substance, affirmed by Macknight, Ernesti, Conybeare, Van Mildert, Horne, Nares,
Chevalier, Stuart, Stowe, and Muenscher.
346
PRINCIPLES OF
writers to be typical are rather to be taken as specimens and ex¬
amples for the interpretation of all types. For it will hardly be
deemed reasonable or satisfactory to affirm that Moses and Jonah
a better prin- were typical characters and deny such character to
ciPle- Samuel and Elisha. The miraculous passage of the
Jordan may have as profound a typical significance as that of the
Red Sea, and the sweetened waters of the desert as that of the
smitten rock in Horeb. Our Lord rebuked the two disciples for
having a heart so dull and slow to believe in all things which the
prophets spoke (Luke xxiv, 25), clearly implying the duty of seek¬
ing to apprehend the sense of all the prophetic Scriptures. A sim¬
ilar reproof is administered to the Hebrews (Heb. v, 10-14) for
their incapacity to understand the typical character of Melehizedek,
“thus placing it beyond a doubt,” says Fairbairn, “that it is both
the duty and the privilege of the Church, with that measure of the
Spirit’s grace which it is the part even of private Christians to pos¬
sess, to search into the types of ancient Scripture and come to a
correct understanding of them. To deny this is plainly to withhold
an important privilege from the Church of Christ, to dissuade from
it is to encourage the neglect of an incumbent duty.” 1
Such Old Testament persons and events as are cited for typical
lessons should always, however, possess some notably exceptional
importance. Some have taken Abel, as a keeper of sheep, to be a
type of Christ the great Shepherd. But a score of others might as
well be instanced, and the analogy is, therefore, too common to be
exalted into the dignity of a prefiguring type. So, also, as we have
said, every prophet, priest, and king of the Old Testament, consid¬
ering merely their offices, were types of Christ; but it would be
improper to cite every one, of whom we have any recorded history,
as a type. Only exceptional characters, such as Moses, Aaron, and
David, are to be so used. Each case must be determined on its
own merits by the good sense and sound judgment of the inter¬
preter; and his exegetical discernment must be disciplined by a
thorough study of such characters as are acknowledged on all hands
to be scriptural types.
1 Typology, vol. i, page 29. See this subject more amply discussed by this writer
in connexion with the passage above quoted (pp. 26-32) where he ably shows that
the writers belonging to the school of Marsh “ drop a golden principle for the sake of
avoiding a few lawless aberrations.” He observes that their system of procedure
“sets such narrow limits to our inquiries that we cannot, indeed, wander far into the
regions of extravagance. But in the very prescription of these limits it wrongfully
withholds from us the key of knowledge, and shuts us up to evils scarcely less to be
deprecated than those it seeks to correct.”
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
347
CHAPTER XVII.
INTERPRETATION OF SYMBOLS.
Biblical symbolism is, in many respects, one of the most difficult
subjects with which the interpreter of divine revelation Difficulties of
has to deal. Spiritual truths, prophetic oracles, and toe subject,
things unseen and eternal, have been represented enigmatically in
sacred symbols, and it appears to have been the pleasure of the
Great Author of divine revelation that many of the deepest mys¬
teries of providence and grace should be thus enshrined. And, be¬
cause of its mystic and enigmatic character, this whole subject of
symbolism demands of the interpreter a sober and discriminating
judgment, a most delicate taste, a thorough collation and compari¬
son of Scripture symbols, and a rational and self-consistent pro¬
cedure in their explanation.
The proper and logical method of investigating the principles of
symbolization is first to collate a sufficient number and principles of
variety of the biblical symbols, especially such as are procedure,
accompanied by an authoritative solution. And it is all-important
that we do not admit into such a collation any objects which are
not veritable symbols, for such a fundamental fallacy would neces¬
sarily vitiate our whole subsequent procedure. Having brought
together in one field of view a goodly number of unquestionable
examples, our next step is to mark carefully the principles and
methods exhibited in the exposition of those symbols which are ac¬
companied by a solution. As, in the interpretation of parables, we
make the expositions of our Lord a main guide to the understand¬
ing of all parables, so from the solution of symbols furnished by
the sacred writers we should, as far as possible, learn the principles
by which all symbols are to be interpreted.
It is scarcely to be disputed that the cherubim and flaming sword
placed at the east of Eden (Gen. iii, 24), the burn- classification of
ing bush at Horeb (Exod. iii, 2), and the pillars of symbols,
cloud and fire which went before the Israelites (Exod. xiii, 21)
were of symbolical import. In a scientific classification of symbols
these are, perhaps, sufficiently exceptional to be placed by them¬
selves, and designated as miraculously signal. Other symbols
are appropriately named material, because they consist of material
343
PRINCIPLES OF
objects, as the blood offered in expiatory sacrifices, the bread and
wine of the Eucharist, and the tabernacle and temple with their
apartments and furniture. But by far the more numerous symbols
are the visional, including all such as were seen in the dreams and
visions of the prophets. Under one or the other of these thiee
heads we may bring all the biblical symbols, and any attempt at
a more minute classification would, at this stage of our investiga¬
tion, be unnecessary and inexpedient.1
As the visional symbols are the most numerous and common,
The Almond and many of them have special explanations, we be-
Rod. gin with these, and take the simplest and less impor¬
tant first. In Jer. i, 11, the prophet is represented as seeing “a
rod of an almond tree,” which is at once explained as a symbol of
the active vigilance with which Jehovah would attend to the per¬
formance of his word. The key to the explanation is found in the
Hebrew name of the almond tree, which Gesenius defines as
“ the waker, so called as being the earliest of all trees to awake
from the sleep of winter.” 2 In verse 12 the Lord appropriates
this wrord in its verbal form, and says: “For I am watching
over my word to perform it.”
1 Winthrop, in his Essay on the Characteristics and Laws of Prophetic Symbols
(2d ed., New York, 1854, pp. 16-19), adopting substantially the theory of Mr.
D. N. Lord (Theological and Literary Journal for April, 1851, p. 668), divides what
he regards as the biblical symbols into five classes, as follows : (1) Living conscious
agents, as God, the Son of man, the Lamb, angels, men, souls (Rev. vi, 9), beasts,
monster animals, and insects ; (2) dead bodies, as the slain witnesses in Rev. xi ;
(3) natural unconscious agents or objects, as the earth, sun, moon, stars, and waters ;
(4) artificial objects, as candlesticks, sword, cities, books, diadems, and white robes;
(5) acts, effects, characteristics, conditions, and relations of agents and objects, as
speaking, fighting, and colour. But a large proportion of the agents and objects he
enumerates are not symbols. He makes God and Christ, disembodied souls, risen
saints, and living men, symbols of themselves ! Other objects named, as acts, ef¬
fects, colours, and relations, are symbolical only as they form part of a composite
image, and should be rather designated as symbolical attributes , and not erected into
independent symbols. E. R. Craven, the American editor of Lange on the Revela¬
tion (pp. 145, 146), adopts the first four classes of Lord and Winthrop, and then pro¬
pounds a further classification based upon the relations of symbols to the ultimate
objects symbolized. He finds five orders, which he designates (1) immediate-similar,
(2) immediate-ideal, (3) mediate-individual, (4) classical, and (5) aberrant. But he
falls into the error of Lord and Winthrop, of making an object symbolize itself.
His immediate-similar, and at least some of his immediate-symbols, cannot, for this
reason, be accepted as symbols until proven to be such by valid evidence. Such proof
we do not find that he has attempted to produce.
2 Heb. Lex., sub verbo. Pliny (Hist. Nat., xvi, 25) observes that the almond blos¬
soms first of all trees in the month of January, and matures its fruit in March.
Nagelsbach (Com. on Jeremiah, in loco) remarks: “What the cock is among domestic
animals, the almond is among trees.”
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
349
A seething pot (n*B}Tp, a pot bloiooi upon , i. e., by fire) appeared
to the prophet with “ its face from the face of the north ” The seething
(Jer. i, 13), that is, its front and opening were turned Pot-
toward the prophet at Jerusalem, as if a furious fire were pouring
its blaze upon its northern side, and was likely to overturn it and
drive its boiling hot waters southward “upon all the cities of Ju¬
dah” (ver. 15). This is explained in the immediate context as the
irruption of “ all the families of the kingdoms of the north ” upon
the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem. “ The swelling waters of a
flood are the usual symbol of any overwhelming calamity (Psa. lxix,
1, 2), and especially of a hostile invasion (Isa. viii, 7, 8); but this is
a flood of scalding waters whose very touch is death.” 1 Here, also,
in the inspired exposition of the vision, appears a play upon He¬
brew words. Jehovah says, in verse 14, “From the north shall be
opened (nnsn) the evil upon all the inhabitants of the land.” There
is a designed assonance between ITiDp in verse 13 and nriBfl in verse 14.
The symbol of the good and bad figs, in Jer. xxiv, is accom¬
panied by an ample exposition. The prophet saw “ two The good and
baskets of figs set before the temple of Jehovah ” (ver. 1), bad Figs*
as if they had been placed there as offerings to the Lord. The
good figs were pronounced very good, and the bad figs were very
bad, and, for that reason, not fit to be eaten (ver. 3). The good
ficrs represent, according to the Lord’s own . showing, the better
classes of the Jewish people, who were to be taken for a godly dis¬
cipline to the land of the Chaldseans, and in due time brought
back again. The bad figs represent Zedekiah and the miserable
remnant that were left with him in the land of Judah, but were
soon cut off or driven away.
Vtery similar is Amos’ vision of “a basket of summer fruit”
(Amos viii, 1), that is, early-ripe fruit comp. 2 Sam. The Summer
xvi, 1, and Isa. xvi, 9) ready to be gathered. It was a Fruit-
symbol of the end (pj?) about to come upon Israel. As in the sym¬
bols of the almond rod and the seething pot, there is here also a
paronomasia of the Hebrew words for ripe fruit and end , quayts
and qets. The people are ripe for judgment, and Jehovah will
bring the matter to an early end ; and, as if the end had come, it is
written (ver. 3): “And the songs of the temple have wailed in that
day, saith the Lord Jehovah. Vast the corpse! In every place he
has cast it forth. Hush! ”
The resurrection of dry bones, in Ezek. xxxvii, 1-14, is explained
of the restoration of Israel to their own land. The vision is not a par¬
able (Jerome), but a composite visional symbol of life from the dead.
1 R. Payne Smith, in Speaker’s Commentary, in loco.
PRINCIPLES OF
The dry bones are expressly declared to be “the whole house of Is¬
rael ” (ver. 11), and are represented as saying: “ Our bones are dried,
„ and our hope is perished.” These bones were not en-
tion of dry cased in sepulchres, or buried in the ground, but were
seen in great numbers “on the surface of the valley”
(ver. 2). So the exiled Israelites were scattered among the nations,
and the lands of their exile were their graves. But the prophecy
now comes from Jehovah (ver. 12) : “ Behold, I open your graves and
bring you up out of your graves, O my people! ” In verse 14 it is
added: “I will put my Spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I will
cause you to rest on your own ground, and ye shall know that I,
Jehovah, have spoken and accomplished, saith Jehovah.” To all
outward appearances Israel was politically and spiritually ruined,
and the promised restoration was, in reality, as life' from the dead.
In the opening vision of the Apocalypse, John saw the likeness
The golden of the Son of man in the midst of seven golden candle-
Candiestick. sticks, and was told that the candlesticks were symbols
of the seven churches of Asia. And there is no question but that
the golden candlestick with its seven lamps seen by the prophet
Zechariah (chap, iv, 2), and the seven-branched candlestick of the
Mosaic tabernacle (Exod. xxv, 31-40), were of like symbolical im¬
port. These all denote the Church or people of God considered
as the light of the world (comp. Matt, v, 14; Phil, ii, 15; Eph. v, 8).
In Zechariah’s vision (Zech. iv) there appeared two olive trees,
The two Olive one at the right and the other at the left of the golden
Trees* candlestick, and through two of their branches they
poured the golden oil out of themselves. The composite symbol
was “a word of Jehovah to Zerubbabel, saying, Not in might and
not in power, but in my Spirit, saith Jehovah of hosts” (ver. 6);
and the two olive trees denoted “ the two anointed ones (Hebrew,
sons of oil) who stand by the Lord of all the land ” (ver. 14). These
two anointed ones are spoken of as if well known, and needing no
further designation. The vision had special comfort and encour¬
agement for Zerubbabel. At that time of trouble, when the suprem¬
acy of Persia seemed so absolute that Israel might well despair of
regaining any of its ancient glory, and might be overawed by an
undue estimate of national and military power, the lesson is given
that the people of God need not aspire after that sort of prow¬
ess. God’s people are set to be the light of the world, and their
glory is to be seen not in worldly might and pomp, but in the
Spirit of Jehovah of hosts. And this Spirit, as contrasted with
the might of the world, is to be understood, not solely as the sanc-
tifying grace of God in the heart, but as the divine wisdom and
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
351
power of the Almighty, by which he ever carries to completion the
great purposes of his will. The mountains of difficulty which con¬
fronted this great leader of God’s people should become a plain
(vet. 7); his hands had laid the foundation of the house of God
(which itself was a symbol of the Church), and he has the assurance
that he shall complete it, and in the triumph of his labour even the
eyes of Jehovah shall rejoice (ver. 10). “Joshua, the high priest
standing before the angel of Jehovah” (chap, iii, 1) has already
received special comfort and encouragement from the vision and
prophecy of the previous chapter, and these two, Joshua and Zer¬
ubbabel, are evidently “the two anointed ones” denoted by the
olive trees. These were raised up in the providence of God and
prepared and consecrated to be the ministers of his grace to the
people in that perilous time.1 There is no propriety in making
these trees represent, as some do, the Church and the State; for,
if the candlestick represents the Church, it would be incongruous
to make one of the olive trees represent the same thing. For the
same reason we must reject the view of Kliefoth and Wright, w-ho
make the olive trees denote Jews and Gentiles as jointly aiding and
sustaining the light of truth, for this also confounds candlestick and
olive trees. There is, further, no warrant for making these trees
symbolize the regal and priestly offices or orders, for the Scripture
furnishes no valid evidence that those offices and orders as such
were ever designed to be media of communicating the grace and
power of God to the Church. The office of priest was established,
not as a means of communicating divine grace to the people,
but rather to offer the people’s gifts and sacrifices for sins to
God (Heb. v, 1), and the office of king certainly had no such func¬
tion as that of these olive trees. Neither was Zerubbabel in any
proper sense a king. Individual priests and kings were, indeed,
a means of blessing to Israel, but an equal or greater number
were a curse rather than a blessing. Joshua and Zerubbabel were
the chosen and anointed agents for building the second temple, and
they fully meet the requirements of the symbol.2
1 “ The two sons of oil,” says Keil, “ can only be the two media, anointed with oil,
through whom the spiritual and gracious gifts of God were conveyed to the Church
of the Lord, namely, the existing representatives of the priesthood and the regal gov¬
ernment, who were at that time Joshua, the high priest, and the prince Zerubbabel.
These stand by the Lord of the whole earth as the divinely appointed instruments
through whom the Lord causes his Spirit to flow into his congregation.” — Commen¬
tary on the Minor Prophets, in loco.
2 Cowles observes : “ I prefer to apply the phrase, the two anointed ones , to the two
orders, kings and priests, rather than to the two individuals then filling those offices,
Zerubbabel and Joshua, because this provision for oil through these conducting tubes
352
PRINCIPLES OF
The mention of “ the two olive trees and the two candlesticks,
The allusion in standing before the Lord of the earth,” in Rev. xi, 4, is
Rev. xi, 4. merely a metaphorical allusion to these symbols in
Zechariah, and serves to enhance the dignity of the two witnesses
whom the writer is describing. But with John they are not sym¬
bols, and were not seen as such in his vision. And this fact should
make us distrust all those expositions which make the two witnesses
represent offices and orders in the Church, or two lines of witnesses,
or the Law and the Gospel, or two different Christian bodies, as
the Waldenses and Albigenses. If the olive trees in Zechariah rep¬
resent individuals, the allusion in Rev. xi, 4 would most properly
designate the two witnesses as individuals also, and the whole de¬
scription of their work, power, death, resurrection, and ascension to
heaven, most readily harmonizes with this view. The singularity of
their position is also denoted by calling them “ the two candlesticks,”
as well as the two olive trees. They were not only God’s two
anointed ones, but the two sole light holders which he had remain¬
ing in that doomed city “where their Lord was crucified” (ver. 8).
The symbols employed in the Book of Daniel are, happily, so
fully explained that there need be no serious doubt as to the import
m of most of them. The great image of Nebuchadnezzar’s
image of Dan- dream (chap ii, 31-35) was a symbol of a succession of
world-powers. The head of gold denoted Nebuchad¬
nezzar himself, as the mighty head and representative of the Baby¬
lonian monarchy (vers. 37, 38). The other parts of the image,
composed of other metals, symbolized kingdoms that were subse¬
quently to arise. The legs of iron denoted a fourth kingdom of
great strength, “forasmuch as iron breaks in pieces and crushes
every thing” (ver. 40). The feet and toes, part of iron and part of
clay, indicated the mingled strength and weakness of this kingdom
in its later period (vers. 41-43). The stone that smote the image,
and became a great mountain filling the whole land, was a prophetic
symbol of the kingdom of the God of heaven (vers. 44, 45). 1
was not transient, limited to the lifetime of these two men, but permanent— to con¬
tinue as long as God should give them kings and priests, and, especially, because
permanence was a cardinal idea in the symbol.” — Notes on the Minor Prophets, in
loco. Here are several unwarranted and fallacious assumptions. There is nothing
in the symbol that represents enduring permanence ; Zerubbabel, though of royal an¬
cestry, was not a king, but, like Nehemiah, of later times, was merely a temporary
governor, and a subject of the Persian Empire. And no king, in any worthy sense
of the name, ever reigned in Israel after the exile.
1 Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of the great tree, in Dan. iv, is so fully and minutely ex¬
plained there, that we need only make this reference to it, and leave the reader to ex¬
amine the details for himself.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
353
The four great beasts, in Dan. vii, 1-8, are said to represent four
kings that should arise out of the earth (ver. IV). The Thefour Beasts
fourth beast is also defined, in verse 23, as a fourth of Daniel vii.
kingdom, from which we infer that a wild beast may symbolize
either a king or a kingdom. So in the image, the king Nebuchad¬
nezzar was the head of gold (chap, ii, 38), and also the representa¬
tive of his kingdom. The ten horns of the fourth beast are ten
kings (ver. 24), but from a comparison of Dan. viii, 8, 22, and Rev.
xvii, 11, 12, it appears that horns may also symbolize either kings or
kingdoms. In any such image of a wild beast with horns, the
beast would properly represent the kingdom or world-power, and
the horn or horns some particular king or kings in whom the exer¬
cise of the power of the kingdom centered itself. So a horn may
represent either a king or kingdom, but always with this implied
distinction. No explanation is given of the wings and the heads of
the beasts, nor of other noticeable features of the vision, but wq
can hardly doubt that they also had some symbolical import. The
vision of the ram and the he-goat, in chap, viii, contains no symbols
essentially different, for the ram is explained as the kings of Media
and Persia, the goat as the king of Greece, and the great horn as
the first king (vers. 20, 21).
Most of the symbols employed by Zecliariah are accompanied by
a partial explanation, but so vague and general as to Symbols In
leave much room for conjecture. The riders on various zechariah.
coloured horses, indefinite in number, are said to be “those whom
Jehovah sent forth to walk up and down in the fctnd” (Zech. i, 10),
and they are represented as saying to the angel of Jehovah: “We
have walked up and down in the land, and behold, all the land is
sitting and resting” (ver. 11). Whether they traversed the land
together in a body, or separately and successively; and whether
their mission was merely one of inspection, or for the purpose of
bringing the land to the quiet condition reported, are points left
undecided by the language of the sacred writer. Any one of these
suppositions is possible ; and our opinion on the subject should be
formed by a careful study of the historical standpoint of the proph¬
et, and the analogy of other similar visions and symbols.
The four horns (Zech. i, 18, 19 in Eng. Ver., Sept., and Vulg.,
but chap, ii, 1, 2 in Heb. text), described in the next vis- The four Horns
ion are explained as “the horns which scattered Judah, and four smiths.
Israel, and Jerusalem.” Horns here, as in the visions of Daniel,
doubtless represent kings or kingdoms, but whether these four
horns belonged to one beast or more is not stated. Many inter¬
preters understand by the four horns the four kingdoms predicted
23
354
PRINCIPLES OF
by Daniel ; but against this view is the consideration that these
four horns have wrought their work of violence (ViT, have scattered ,
or did scatter ), but a part of the kingdoms foretold by Daniel were
future from the historical standpoint of Zechariah. Others under¬
stand four distinct world-powers, as Assyria, Babylon, Egypt, and
Persia, while others understand the number four as a symbolical
number, having a very general reference to the four points of the
compass, and denoting enemies from all quarters. Either of the last
two suppositions may be held, but the last named, in the absence
of any thing more specific in the language of the prophet, is the
safer hypothesis. The four smiths or “carpenters” (vers. 20, 21),
which are evidently the providential agencies raised up to awe and
cast out the powerful enemies and scatterers of God’s people, may
denote either human or divine instrumentalities, or an interworking
of both.
The flying roll (Zech. v, 1-4) was a symbol of Jehovah’s curse
The flying Roil upon thieves and false swearers. Its dimensions, twenty
and the Ephah. cubits by ten, exactly the size of the porch of the temple
(1 Kings vi, 3), might naturally intimate that the judgment denoted
must begin at the house of the Lord (Ezek. ix, 6 ; 1 Pet. iv, 17).
In immediate connexion with this vision the prophet saw also an
ephah going forth (ver. 6), an uplifted talent of lead,1 and a woman
sitting in the midst of the ephah. The woman was declared to be
a symbol of “wickedness” (ver. 8). But what sort of wickedness?
The ephah and the stone of lead, naturally suggestive of measure
and weight , wou3$ indicate the wickedness of unrighteous traffic —
the sin denounced by Amos (viii, 5) of “ making the ephah small
and the shekel great, and falsifying the balances by deceit.” This
symbol of wickedness is here presented as a woman who had an
empty measure for her throne, and a weight of lead for a sign.
But her punishment and confusion are brought about by the
1 Very many expositors understand rpiBtf "133 to mean a circle or cover of lead;
but, as Wright well observes, “if the ephah had a cover of lead, that cover would
scarcely have been termed the stone of lead , or leaden stone (ver. 8). The rendering
leaden cover obscures the real sense of the vision. The Hebrew word rendered talent
does, indeed, literally mean a circle, and the expression a circle of bread is used to de¬
note a round loaf (Exod. xxix, 23 ; 1 Sam. ii, 36). The word is not found in the sig¬
nification of a cover, though that is a possible signification. It is constantly used in
the sense of a fixed weight by which gold, silver, and other things were weighed and
measured, and is naturally spoken of in such a meaning here in connexion with the
ephah, as the latter was the usual measure of capacity. The talent was the standard
measure of quantity, and the weight was made of lead as the most common heavy
metal, and was used in all commercial transactions for weighing out money.” — Bamp-
ton Lectures on Zechariah, pp. Ill, 112.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
355
instruments of her sin (comp. Matt, vii, 2). She is cast into the
ephah, and the leaden weight is cast like a stone upon her mouth.
She is not, however, destroyed, but transported to a distant land, and
this is effected by two other women, apparently her aiders and abet¬
tors in wickedness, who had wings like the wings of a stork, and who
were therefore quick and powerful enough to rescue the one woman
from immediate doom, and carry her off and establish her in another
land. Thus the children of this world are wise toward their own
kind (Luke xvi, 8). This distant land is called the land of Shinar
(ver. 11), perhaps for the reason that it was the land where wicked¬
ness first developed itself after the flood (Gen. xi, *2).
The four chariots, probably war chariots, which this same prophet
saw going forth from between the two mountains of The four char-
brass, and drawn by different coloured horses (Zech. vi, iots*
1-8), are but another and fuller form of presenting the facts symbol¬
ized in the vision of the horsemen in chap, i, 8-11. The import of
the mountains of brass is undefined. The chariots and horses “ are
the four winds1 of the heavens, going forth from standing before
the Lord of all the land” (ver. 5). The black horses were said to
go forth to the land of the north, the white behind them (perhaps
meaning to regions behind or beyond them , DrrinbrtK), and the spec¬
kled (D'Tia, spotted) to the land of the south. Whither the red
horses went is not stated, unless we suppose (as is very probable)
that the word strong , in ver. 7, (rendered bay in Eng. Ver.),
is a copyist’s blunder for DWK, red. These, it is said, “ sought to
go forth to walk up and down in the land” (ver. 7), and were per¬
mitted to have their way, and it is added that those that went to
the land of the north “have caused my spirit to rest (in judgment)
in the land of the north.”
There can be no doubt that these warlike symbols denoted cer¬
tain agencies of divine judgment. They were, like the winds of
the heavens, the messengers and ministers of the divine will (comp.
Psa. civ, 4; Jer. xlix, 36), and it is to be noted that the horsemen
of chap, i, 8-11, and these chariots, respectively, open and close the
series of Zechariah’s symbolic visions. No more specific explana¬
tion of their meaning than that furnished above is given in the
Scripture. Perhaps, in distinguishing the import of the. several
symbols, we might reasonably suppose that the warlike riders on
horses denoted so many military chieftains and conquerors (as for
example Shalmaneser, Nebuchadnezzar, Pharaoh Necho, and Cyrus),
1 The word nlffi"!, winds, does not anywhere appear to be used in the plural in the
sense of spirits, or personal beings; but these four chariots correspond with the mys¬
tic wheels of Ezek. i, 15-21 ; x, 9-13.
856
PRINCIPLES OF
and the more impersonal vision of the chariots and horses as con¬
quering world-powers, and having regard to the military forces of a
kingdom rather than any individual conqueror; as when, in Isa. x, 5,
Assyria (not Assyrian as Eng. Yer.) is a rod of God’s anger.
The foregoing examples of symbols, more or less fully explained,
should have great weight with us in determining the
Examples” °au^ general principles of biblical symbolism. W e note that
thorize— ^he names 0f an these symbols are to be taken literally.
Trees, figs, bones, candlesticks, olive trees, beasts, horns, horses,
riders, and chariots, are all simple and natural designations of what
the prophets saw. But, while the words are to be understood lit¬
erally, they are symbols of something else. As, in metonymy, one
thing is put for another, or, as in allegory, one thing is said and an¬
other is intended, so a symbol always denotes something other
than itself. Ezekiel saw a resurrection of dry bones, but it meant
the restoration of Israel from the lands of their exile. Daniel saw
a great horn upon the head of a he-goat, but it represented the
mighty Grecian conqueror, Alexander the Great. But, though one
thing is said and another is intended in the use of symbols, there is
always traceable a resemblance, more or less detailed, between the
symbol and the thing symbolized. In some cases, as that of the
almond rod (Jer. i, 11), the analogy is suggested by the name. A
candlestick represents the Church or people of God by holding a
light where it may shine for all in the house (Matt, v, 15), even as
God’s people are to occupy a position in the visible Church, and
let their light so shine that others may see their good works. The
correspondences between the beasts in Daniel and the powers they
represented are in some points quite detailed. In view of these
Three funda severa^ facts> therefore, we accept the following as
mental Princi- three fundamental principles of symbolism: (1) The
ples‘ names of symbols are to be understood literally; (2) the
symbols always denote something essentially different from them¬
selves; and (3) some resemblance, more or less minute, is traceable
between the symbol and the thing symbolized.
The great question with the interpreter of symbols should, there-
No minute set fore, be, What are the probable points of resemblance
cable leSt(fPPaii between this sign and the thing which it is intended to
symbols. represent? And one would suppose it to be obvious to
every thoughtful mind that in answering this question no minute
and rigid set of rijles, as supposably applicable to all symbols, can
be expected. For there is an air of enigma and mystery about all
emblems, and the examples adduced above show that while in some
the points of resemblance are many and minute, in others they are
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
357
slight and incidental. In general it may be said that in answering
the above question the interpreter must have strict regard (1) to
the historical standpoint of the writer or prophet, (2) to the scope
and context, and (3) to the analogy and import of similar symbols
and figures elsewhere used. That is, doubtless, the true interpreta¬
tion of every symbol which most fully satisfies these several condi¬
tions, and which attempts to press no point of supposable resem¬
blance beyond what is clearly warranted by fact, reason, and
analogy.
For the interpretation of prophetic symbols Fairbairn enunciates
two very important principles: (l)“The image must Fairbalrn»g
be contemplated in its broader and commoner aspects, statement of
as it would naturally present itself to the view of per- PrinciPles‘
sons generally acquainted with the works and ways of God, not as
connected with any smaller incidents or recondite uses known only
to the few. ... (2) The other condition with which the use and
interpretation of symbols must be associated is that of a consistent
and uniform manner of applying them; not shifting from the sym¬
bolical to the literal without any apparent indication of a change
in the original; or from one aspect of the symbolical to another
essentially different, but adhering to a regular and harmonious
treatment of the objects introduced into the representation. With¬
out such a consistence and regularity in the employment of symbols
there could be no certainty in the interpretations put upon them,
all would become arbitrary and doubtful.” 1
The hermeneutical principles derived from the foregoing exami¬
nation of the visional symbols of Scripture are equally same Prmci-
applicable to the interpretation of material symbols, EeJsym-
such as the tabernacle, the ark of the covenant, the bois.
mercy-seat, the sacrificial offerings and ceremonial washings re¬
quired by the law, the water of baptism and the bread and wine in
the Lord’s supper. For, as far as they set forth any spiritual fact or
thought, their imagery is of essentially the same general character.2
1 Fairbairn on Prophecy, pp. 150, 151. The writer goes on to show how current
systems of apocalyptic interpretation violate both of these principles.
2 Bahr enunciates the following hermeneutical principles and rules for the explan¬
ation of symbols : (1) The meaning of a symbol is to be determined first of all by an
accurate knowledge of its nature. (2) The symbols of the Mosaic cultus can have, in
general, only such meaning as accords with the religious ideas and truths of Mosaism,
and with its clearly expressed and acknowledged principles. (3) The import of each
separate symbol is to be sought, in the first place, from its name. (4) Each individual
symbol has, in general, but one signification. (5) However different the connexion in
which it may occur, each individual symbol has always the same fundamental mean¬
ing. (6) In every symbol, whether it be object or action, the main idea to be symbol-
358
PRINCIPLES OF
The symbolical import of the shedding of blood in sacrificial
symbolism of worship is shown in Lev. xvii, 11, where it is stated,
Biood. as the reason for the prohibition of eating blood, that
“the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you
upon the altar to make expiation for your souls, for the blood makes
expiation in the soul.” The exact sense of the last clause is some¬
what obscure. The phrase &?£>33, in the soul, is rendered in the
common version, after the Septuagint, 'Vulgate, and Luther, for
the soul ; but the verb 133 is never elsewhere construed with 3, re¬
ferring to that for which expiation is made. It is better, there¬
fore, to translate as Keil does: “ For the blood, it expiates by virtue
of the soul.” The preposition 3 thus denotes the means by which
the atonement is accomplished. “ It was not the blood as such,”
says Keil, “but the blood as the vehicle of the soul, which pos¬
sessed expiatory virtue, because the animal soul was offered to God
upon the altar as a substitute for the human soul.” 1 Delitzsck ren¬
ders: “For the blood, by means of the soul, is an atonement.”
That is, as he observes, “ the blood atones by the means, or by the
power, of the soul which is in it. The life of the sinner has spe¬
cially incurred the punitive wrath of Jehovah, but he accepts for it
the substituted life of the sacrificial beast, the blood of which is
shed and brought before him, whereupon he pardons the sinner.
The prohibition of eating the blood is thus doubly established: the
blood has the soul in itself, and it is, in consequence of a gracious
arrangement of God, the means of atonement for the souls of men,
in virtue of the soul contained in it. The one reason lies in the
nature of the blood, and the other in its destination to a holy pur¬
pose, which, even apart from the other reason, withdraws it from a
common use: it is that which contains the soul, and God suffers it
to be brought to his altar as an atonement for human souls. It
atones not by indwelling power, which the blood of beasts has not,
except, perchance, as given by God for this purpose — given, name¬
ly, with a view to the fulness of the times foreseen from eternity,
when that blood is to flow for humanity which atones, because a
soul united to the eternal Spirit (comp. Heb. ix, 14) has place there¬
in, and because it is exactly of such value that it is able to screen
the whole of humanity.” 3
Nothing pertaining to the Mosaic worship is more evident than
ized must be carefully distinguished from that which necessarily serves only for its
appropriate exhibition, and has, therefore, only a secondary purpose. See his Sym-
bolik des mosaischen Cultus, pp. 89-93. Second ed. Heidelberg, 1874.
1 Commentary on Leviticus xvii, 11.
8 Biblical Psychology, p. 283. See the whole section on soul and blood, part i v, sec. 11.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
3r,9
the fact that “ apart from shedding of blood ( alfiareuxvoia , po ur lug
out of blood. Ileb. ix, 22) there is no remission.” This XT _ , .
solemn pouring out of blood was the offering of a without oiood-
living soul, for the warm life blood was conceived as sljeddins-
the element in which the soul subsisted, or with which it was in
some mysterious way identified (comp. Dent, xii, 23). When poured
out at the altar it symbolized the surrender of a life which had
been forfeited by sin, and the worshipper who made the sacrifice
thereby acknowledged before God his death-deserving guilt. “ The
rite of expiatory sacrifice,” says Fairbairn, “was, in its own nature,
a symbolical transaction embodying a threefold idea; first, that the
worshipper, having been guilty of sin, had forfeited his life to God ;
then, that the life so forfeited must be surrendered to divine justice;
and, finally, that being surrendered in the way appointed, it was
given back to him again by God, or he became re-established as a
justified person in the divine favour and fellowship.” 1
The symbolism and typology of the Mosaic tabernacle are recog¬
nized in the ninth chapter of the Epistle to the He- symbolism of
brews, from which it appears that specific objects, as theTabernaeie.
the candlestick, the show bread, and the ark, had a symbolical
meaning, and that the various ordinances of the worship were shad¬
ows of good things to come. But the particular import of the
various symbols, and of the tabernacle as a whole, is left for the
interpreter to gather from the various Scripture passages which
bear upon the subject. It must be ascertained, like the import of
all other symbols not formally expounded in the Scriptures, from
the particular names or designations used, and from such allusions
by the sacred writers as will serve either for suggestion or illus¬
tration.
The words by which the tabernacle is designated serve as a clue
to the great idea embodied in its complex symbolism • Names of the
The principal name is |3?to, dwelling , but 5>n«, tent , usu- Tabernacle,
ally connected with some distinguishing epithet, is also frequently
used, and is applied to the tabernacle in the books of Exodus, Le¬
viticus, and Numbers more than one hundred and fifty times. In
Exod. xxiii, 19 ; xxxiv, 26, it is called m\T TVS, house of Jehovah,
and in 1 Sam. i, 9; iii, 3, nirp b'n, temple of Jehovah. But a fuller
indication of the import of these names is found in the compound
1 Typology, vol. i, p. 54. On the symbolism and typology of the Old Testament
sacrifices, see Kurtz, Der alttestamentliche Opfercultus (Mitau, 1862); English trans¬
lation, Sacrificial Worship of the Old Testament (Edinb., 1863); Cave, The Scriptural
Doctrine of Sacrifice (Edinb., 1877); Keil, Die Opfer des alten Bundes nach ihrer
symbolischen und typischen Bedeuting (in Luth. Zeitschrift for 1856 and lo57).
360
PRINCIPLES OP
expressions 1TC SriN, tent of meeting , JTfiyn tent of the testi¬
mony, and nnj/n dwelling of the testimony. The testimony is
a term applied emphatically to the law of the two tables (Exod.
xxv, 16, 21 ; xxxi, 18), and designated the authoritative declaration
of God, upon the basis of which he made a covenant with Israel
(Exod. xxxiv, 27 ; Deut. iv, 13). Hence these tables were called
tables of the covenant (Deut. ix, 9) as well as tables of the testi¬
mony. As the representatives of God’s most holy testimony against
sin they occupied the most secret and sacred place of his tabernacle
(Exod. xxv, 16). All these designations of the tabernacle serve to
indicate its great design as a symbol of Jehovah’s meeting and
dwelling with his people. One passage which, above all others,
elaborates this thought, is Exod. xxix, 42-46 : “ It shall be a con¬
tinual burnt offering throughout your generations, at the door of
the tent of meeting (*iTO"^ns) before Jehovah, where I will meet
(“ISAK) you, to speak unto thee there. And I will meet (W]J?5) there
the sons of Israel, and he (i. e., Israel) shall be sanctified in my
glory. And I will sanctify the tent of meeting (“ire^rix) and the
altar, and Aaron and his sons will I sanctify to act as priests for
me. And I will dwell ('fiJSf?) in the midst of the sons of Israel, and
I will be God to them, and they shall know that I am Jehovah their
God, who brought them out of the land of Egypt, that I might
dwell ('jOg^) in their midst — I, Jehovah, their God.”
The tabernacle, therefore, is not to be thought of as a symbol of
things external and visible,1 not even of heaven itself considered
merely as a place, but of the meeting and dwelling together of God
and his people both in time and eternity. The ordinances of
Tabernacle worship may be expected to denote the way in which
symbolizes a Jehovah condescends to meet with man, and enables
divine-human , , . . . . . _
Relation rather man to approach nigh unto him — a meeting and fellow-
than a place, ship hy which the true Israel become sanctified in the
divine glory (Exod. xxix, 43). The divine-human relationship real¬
ized in the kingdom of heaven is attained in Christ when God comes
1 A full statement of the various opinions of the symbolical import of the tabernacle
would require more space than this work allows, and would tend, perhaps, only to
confuse. Our purpose is to direct the student to the right method of ascertaining the
meaning of the principal symbols, and leave him to pursue the details for himself.
For a condensed statement of opinions on the subject, see especially Leyrer, article
Stiftshutte, in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopadie (Stuttgardt ed., 1855-66). See also
Bahr, Symbolik des mosaischen Cultus (Heidelb., 2 vols., 1837-39 ; revised ed., vol. i,
1874); Bahr, Der salomonische Temple (Karlsr., 1848); Friedrich, Symbolik der mo¬
saischen Stiftshutte (Lpz., 1841); Simpson, Typical Character of the Tabernacle
(Edinb., 1852); Keil, Biblischen Archaeologie, pp. 124-129 (Frankf., 1875); Atwater,
History and Significance of the Sacred Tabernacle of the Hebrews (New York, 1875).
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS. 361
unto man and makes his abode {jiovrj v) with him (John xiv, 23), so
that the man dwells in God and God in him (1 John iv, 16). This
is the glorious indwelling contemplated in the prayer of Jesus that
all believers “ may be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee,
that they also may be in us, that the wrorld may believe that thou
didst send me. And the glory which thou hast given me I have
given them, that they may be one, even as we are one, I in
them and thou in me, that they may be perfected into one” (John
xvii, 21-23). Of this blessed relationship the tabernacle is a signifi¬
cant symbol, and being also a shadow of the good things to come,
it was a type of the New Testament Church or kingdom of God,
that spiritual house, built of living stones (1 Pet. ii, 5) which is a
habitation of God in the spirit (Eph. ii, 22).
The two apartments of the ( dwelling , or tabernacle proper),
the holy place and the most holy, would naturally rep- The two Apart-
resent the twofold relation, the human and the divine, “ents-
The Holy of Holies, being Jehovah’s special dwellingplace, would
appropriately contain the symbols of his testimony and relation to
his people; the holy place, with ministering priest, incense altar,
table of showbread and candlestick, expressed the relation of the
true worshippers toward God. The two places, separated only by
the veil, denoted, therefore, on the one hand, what God is in his
condescending grace toward his people, and on the other, what his
redeemed people — the salt of the earth and the light of the world —
are toward him. It was meet that the divine and human should
thus be made distinct.1
As the Holy of Holies in the temple was a perfect cube ( 1 Kings
vi, 20), so was it doubtless in the tabernacle. The _ . _ .
length and breadth and height of it being equal, like place and its
the heavenly Jerusalem (Rev. xxi, 16), its form was a Symbols-
symbol of perfection. Here was placed the ark, the depository of
1 However near God may come to his creatures, and however close the fellowship to
which he admits them, there still must be something to mark his incomparable great¬
ness and glory. Even in the sanctuary above, where all is stainless purity, the minis¬
tering spirits are represented as veiling their faces with their wings before the mani¬
fested glory of Godhead ; and how much more should sinful men on the earth be alive
to his awful majesty, and feel unworthy to stand amid the splendours of his throne ?
If, therefore, he should so far condescend as to pitch among them a tent for his dwell¬
ing, we might certainly have expected that it would consist of two apartments — one
which he would reserve for his own peculiar residence, and another to which they
should have free access, who, as his familiars, were to be permitted to dwell with him
in his house. For in this way alone could the two grand ideas of the glorious majesty
of God, which raises him infinitely above his people, and yet of his covenant nearness
to them, be reconciled and imaged together. — Fairbairn, Typology, vol. ii, p. 249.
862
PRINCIPLES OF
the two tables of testimony. This testimony was Jehovah’s decla¬
ration from the thick darkness (t>sny) of the mount on which he
descended in smoke and fire, and would remain a monumental wit¬
ness of his wrath against sin. The ark or chest, made of the most
durable wood, and overlaid within and without with gold, was a
becoming shrine in which to preserve inviolate the sacred tables of
divine testimony. The most holy God is jealous (SJj?, comp. Exod.
xx, 5) for the honour of his law. Over the ark, and thus covering
the testimony, was placed the capporeth (ni33), or mercy seat
(Exod. xxv, 21 ; xxvi, 34), to be sprinkled with blood on the great
day of atonement (Lev. xvi, 11-17). This was a most significant
symbol of mercy covering wrath. Made of fine gold, and having
its dimensions the same as the length and breadth of the ark (Exod.
xxv, 17), it fittingly represented that glorious provision of Infinite
Wisdom and Love by wdiich, in virtue of the precious blood of
Christ, and in complete harmony with the righteousness of God,
atonement is made for the guilty but penitent transgressor. The
Septuagint translates niB3, capporeth , by iXaoTrjpiov, which word
Paul uses in Rom. iii, 25, where he speaks of the “ righteousness of
God through faith of Jesus Christ,” and “the redemption {anoXv-
TQOoig) which is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth an expiatory
covering (ikaarripiov), through faith in his blood,” etc. The divine
provision for the covering of sin is the deepest mystery of the king¬
dom of grace. “ It must be noticed,” says Cremer, “ that accord¬
ing to Exod. xxv, 22, and Lev. xvi, 2, the Capporeth is the central
seat of the saving presence and gracious revelation of God ; so that
it need not surprise that Christ is designated IXaoTrjpiov, as he can
be so designated when we consider that he, as high priest and sac¬
rifice at the same time, comes ev to Idea) difiari (in his own blood),
and not as the high priest of the Old Testament, ev digari dXXoTQicd
(with blood not his own) which he must discharge himself of by
sprinkling on the Capporeth. The Capporeth was so far the princi¬
pal part of the Holy of Holies, that the latter is even termed ‘ the
house of the capporeth’ (1 Chron. xxviii, 11).” 1
The two cherubim, placed at the ends of the mercyseat, and
The Cherubim sPrea(^ng their wings over it, were objects too promi¬
nent to be without significance. In Eden the cherubim
appear with the flaming sword to watch (iop) the way of the tree
of life (Gen. iii, 24). In Ezek. i, 5-14 they appear as “ living crea¬
tures” (nisn), their composite form is described, and they are rep¬
resented as moving the mystic wheels of divine providence and
judgment (vers. 15-21). Over their heads was enthroned “the
1 Biblico-Theological Lexicon, p. 306.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS. 363
appearance of the likeness of the glory of Jehovah” (vers. 20-28).
In Rev. iv, 6-8 they appear also as living creatures (£wa) “in the
midst of the throne, and round about the throne.” Whatever the
various import of these figures, we note that they everywhere ap¬
pear in most intimate relation to the glory of God. May we not
believe that they were symbols of the ultimate glory of redeemed
humanity, conveying at the same time profound suggestions of the
immanent presence and intense activity of God in all creature life,
by which (presence and activity) all that was lost in Eden shall be
restored to heavenly places in Christ, and man, redeemed and filled
with the Spirit, shall again have power over the tree of life, which is
in the midst of. the paradise of God (comp. Rev. ii, 7 and xxii, 14) ?
Though of composite form, and representing the highest kinds of
creature life on earth (Ezek. i, 10 ; Rev. iv, 7), these ideal beings
had preeminently the likeness of a man (Exek. i, 5). Jehovah is
the God of the living, and has about the throne of his glory the
highest symbols of life. Both at the gate of paradise and in the
Holy of Holies these cherubim were signs and pledges that in the
ages to come, having made peace through the blood of the cross,
God would reconcile all things unto himself, whether things upon
the earth or things in the heavens (Col. i, 20), and sanctify them in
his glory (Exod. xxix, 43). 1 Then the redeemed “ shall reign in
life” ( ev fiaoLXevoovciv) through Jesus Christ (Rom. v, 17.)
The pot of manna, Aaron’s rod that blossomed, and the book of
the law, were subsequently deposited by the ark (Exod. xvi, 33, 34;
Hum. xvii, 10; Deut. xxxi, 26). These were evidently regarded as
so many additional testimonies of God, similar in character to the
1 “The cherubim,” says Fairbairn, “were in their very nature and design artificial
forms of being — uniting in their composite structure the distinctive features of the
highest kinds of creaturely existence on earth — man’s first and chiefly. They were
set up for representations to the eye of faith of earth’s living creaturehood, and more
especially of its rational and immortal, though fallen head, with reference to the better
hopes and destiny in prospect. From the very first they gave promise of a restored
condition to the fallen, and by the use afterward made of them the light became
clearer and more distinct. By their designations, the positions assigned them, the ac¬
tions from time to time ascribed to them, as well as their own peculiar structure, it
was intimated that the good in prospect should be secured, not at the expense of, but
in perfect consistence with, the claims of God’s righteousness — that restoration to the
holiness must precede restoration to the blessedness of life; and that only by being
made capable of dwelling beside the presence of the only Wise and Good could man
hope to have his portion of felicity recovered. But all this, they further betokened,
it was in God’s purpose to have accomplished ; and so to do it, as, at the same time,
to raise humanity to a higher than its original destination — in its standing neaier to
God, and greatly ennobled in its powers of life and capacities of working.” Typology,
vol. i, pp. 202, 203. Comp, also vol. ii, p. 271.
364
PRINCIPLES OF
two tables placed within the ark, and they were accordingly en¬
shrined in immediate contiguity with them.
As the Holy of Holies symbolized Jehovah’s relations to his peo¬
ple, and intimated what he is to them and what he purposes to do
for them ; and as its symbols of mercy covering wrath showed how
and on what terms he condescends to meet and dwell with men; so,
The Holy Place on the other hand, the holy place, with its golden altar
and its symbols. Gf incense, table of showbread, golden candlestick, and
ministering priests, represented the relations of the true Israel
toward God. The priests who officiated in this holy place acted
not for themselves alone; they were the representatives of all
Israel, and their service was the service of all the tribes, whose pe¬
culiar relation to God, so long as they obeyed his voice and kept
his covenant, was that of “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation”
(Exod. xix, 5, 6; comp. 1 Pet. ii, 5, 9; Rev. i, 6 ; v, 10). As the
officiating priest stood in the holy place, facing the Holy of Holies,
The Table of he had on his right the table of showbread, on his left
Showbread. the candlestick, and immediately before him the altar
of incense (Exod. xl, 22-27). The twelve cakes of showbread kept
continually on the table symbolized the twelve tribes of Israel con¬
tinually presented as a living sacrifice before God (Ley. xxiv, 5-9).
“ The laying out of these loaves,” says Keil, “ assumed the form of
a bloodless sacrifice, in which the congregation brought the fruit
of its life and labour before the face of the Lord, and presented
itself to its God as a nation diligent in sanctification to good works.
If the showbread was a ininchah , or meat offering, and even a most
holy one, which only the priests were allowed to eat in the holy
place, it must naturally have been unleavened, as the unanimous
testimony of Jewish tradition affirms it to have been.”1
The golden candlestick, with its seven lamps, placed opposite the
The golden table, was another symbol of Israel considered as the
Candlestick. Church of the living God. As the showbread repre¬
sented the relation of Israel to God as a holy and acceptable offer¬
ing, the candlestick represented what this same Israel would do for
God as causing the light of the Spirit in them to shine forth. To
all thus exalted may it well be said: “Ye were once darkness, but
now light in the Lord; walk as children of light (for the fruit of
the light is in all goodness, and righteousness, and truth), proving
what is well pleasing unto the Lord” (Eph. v, 8-10).
But the highest continual devotion of Israel to God is represented
at the golden altar of incense, which stood immediately before the
1 Biblical Commentary on Lev. xxiv, 6. Comp. Paul’s language in 1 Cor. v, 7, and
pp. 315, 316 above.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
365
veil and in front of the mercyseat (Exod. xxx, 6). The offering
of incense was an expressive symbol of the prayers of The Altar of in-
the saints (Psa. cxli, 2; Rev. v, 8; viii, 3, 4), and the cense-
whole multitude of the people were wont to pray without at the
hour of the incense-offering (Luke i, 10). Jehovah was pleased to
“ inhabit the praises of Israel ” (Psa. xxii, 3), for all that his people
may be and do in their consecrated relation to him expresses itself
in their prayers before his altar and mercyseat. “ But it ought
ever to be considered,” says Fairbairn, “ what kind of devotions it
is that rise with such acceptance to the sanctuary above. That the
altar of incense stood before the Lord, under his immediate eye,
intimates that the adorations and prayers he regards must be no
formal service in which the lip rather than the heart is employed;
but a felt approach to the presence of the living God, and a real
transaction between the soul and him. That this altar, from its
very position, stood in a close relation to the mercyseat or propitia¬
tory, on the one hand, and by its character and the live coals that
ever burned in its golden vials, stood in an equally close relation to
the altar of burnt offering, on the other, tells us, that all acceptable
prayer must have its foundation in the manifested grace of a re¬
deeming God, and draw its breath of life, in a manner, from that
work of propitiation, which he has in his own person accomplished
for the sinful. And since it was ordained that a ‘ perpetual incense
before the Lord ’ should be ever ascending from the altar — since
injunctions so strict were given for having the earthly sanctuary
made peculiarly and constantly to bear the character of a house of
prayer, most culpably deaf must we be to the voice of instruction
that issues from it if we do not hear enforced, on all who belong to
the spiritual temple of an elect church, such a lesson as this — Pray
without ceasing; the spirit of devotion is the very element of your
being; your beginning and ending are alike here; all, from first to
last, must be sanctified by prayer; and, if this be neglected, neither
can you fitly be named a house of God, nor have you any ground
to expect the blessing of heaven on your means of grace and works
of welldoing.” 1
We need not linger in detail upon the symbolism of the court of
the tabernacle, with its altar of burnt offerings and its GreatAltarand
layer of brass. There could be no approach to God, on Laver in the
the part of sinful men, no possible meeting or dwelling
with him, except by the offerings made at the great altar in front
of the sacred tent. All that belongs to the symbolism of sacrificial
blood centred in this altar, where the daily offerings of Israel were
1 Typology, vol. ii, pp. 287, 288.
366
PRINCIPLES OF
made. No priest might pass into the tabernacle until sprinkled
with blood from that altar (Exod. xxix, 21), and the live coals
used for the burning of incense before Jehovah were taken from
the same place (Lev. xvi, 12). Nor might the priest, on penalty* of
death, minister at the altar or enter the tabernacle without first
washing at the laver (Exod. xxx, 20, 21). So the great altar con¬
tinually proclaimed that without the shedding of blood there is no
remission, and the priestly ablutions denoted that without the
washing of regeneration no man might enter the kingdom of God
(comp. Psa. xxiv, 3, 4; John iii, 5; Heb. x, 19-22). All those
blessed relations, which were symbolized in the holy place, are pos¬
sible only because of the reconciliation effected at the altar of sac¬
rifice without. Having there obtained remission of sins, the true
Israel, as represented in the priests, draw near before God in forms
of holy consecration and service.1
The profound symbolism of the tabernacle is further seen in con-
Symboiico-typ- nexion with the offerings of the great day of atone¬
ment. Once a year the high priest entered the Holy of
Holies to make atonement for himself and Israel, but in
connexion with his work on that day all parts of the
tabernacle are brought into notice. Having washed his
flesh in water, and put on the hallowed linen garments, he first
offered the burnt offering on the great altar to make atonement for
himself and his house (Lev. xvi, 2-6). Then taking a censer of live
coals from the altar he offered incense upon the fire before the
Lord, so that the cloud covered the mercyseat, and, taking the
blood of a bullock and a goat, he passed within the veil and sprin¬
kled the mercyseat seven times with the blood of each (Lev. xvi,
12-16). All this, we are told in the Epistle to the Hebrews, pre¬
figured the work of Christ for us: “Christ having come a high
priest of the good things to come, through the greater and more
perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this crea¬
tion [not material, tangible, of local], nor through the blood of
goats and calves, but through his own blood entered in once for all
into the holy places (rd ayia , plural, and indefinitely intimating
more than places merely), having obtained eternal redemption. . . .
For Christ entered not into holy (places) made with hands, pat¬
terns of the true, but into the heaven itself, now to appear in the
presence of God for us” (Heb. ix, 11, 12, 24). The believer is, ac-
ical sugges¬
tions of the
High Priest’s
action on the
day of Atone¬
ment.
1 “ The holy place,” says Kurtz, “ represented that stage in the history of salvation
in which the great fact of vicarious suffering for the sins of the world lies in the past,
and all that is needed is the personal appropriation of the atoning virtue of the blood
which has been shed.”— Sacrificial Worship of the Old Testament, p. 315. Edinb., 1863.
367
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
eordingly, exported to enter with confidence into the holy places
by the blood of Jesus, and to draw near with a true heart in full
assurance of faith (Heb. x, 19, 22). Whither our high priest has
gone we may also go, and the position of the cherubim over the
mercy seat and in the garden of Eden suggests the final glorifica¬
tion of all the sons of God. This is the profound and suggestive
teaching of Paul in Eph. i, 15; ii, 10, where he speaks of “ the
riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,” and “ that ener¬
gy of the strength of his might which he wrought in Christ, when
he raised him from the dead and made him sit at his right hand in
the heavenly” ( ev roig errovpavioig, not heavenly places merely,
but heavenly associations, fellowships, powers, glories), and then
goes on to say that God, in like manner, quickens those who were
dead in trespasses and sins, makes them alive witS Christ, raises
them up and makes them sit together “ in the heavenly — in Christ
Jesus” (h roig enovpavtotg, i. e., in the same heavenly regions, asso¬
ciations, and glories into which Christ himself has gone). Thus
we see the fullest revelation of the means by which, and the extent
to which, Israel shall be sanctified in Jehovah’s glory (Exod. xxix,
43).1 Then, in the highest and holiest sense, will “ the tabernacle of
God be with men, and he will tabernacle with them, and they shall
be his people, and God himself shall be with them ” (Rev. xxi, 3).
In the heavenly glory there will be no place for temple, or any
local shrine and symbol, “for the Lord, the God, the Almighty, is
its temple, and the Lamb” (Rev. xxi, 22).
The graduated sanctity of the several parts of the tabernacle is
very noticeable. In front was the court, into which m
t .. , ...... The graduated
any Israelite who was ceremonially clean might enter; sanctity of the
next was the holy place, into which none but the con- hoIy places'
secrated priests might go to perform the work of their office, and,
1 The profound expression, in Exod. xxix, 43, may well be compared with that of
Jesus, in John xvii, 24, which, according to the best-authenticated text, reads: “Fa¬
ther, that which thou hast given me (o dedoKuc; (lot), I will that where I am they also
( kukeIvol ) may be with me, that they may behold my glory which thou hast given me,
for thou didst love me before the foundation of the world.” The pleonastic construc¬
tion here seems to have a designed significance. The whole body of the redeemed is
first conceived as a unit ; it is Christ’s inheritance, regarded as the Father’s gift to
him. It is the same as the nuv o deboKc.v fiot , all that which he has given me, in John
vi, 39. But as the thought turns to the individual beholding (comp. “ I shall see for
myself,” etc., Job xix, 27) on the part of the redeemed the plural (kukeIvol) is re¬
sumed. Thus Alford : “ The neuter has a peculiar solemnity, uniting the whole
Church together as one gift of the Father to the Son. Then the kukeIvol resolves it
into the great multitude whom no man can number, and comes home to the heart of
every individual believer with inexpressibly sweet assurance of an eternity writh
Christ.” — Greek Test., in loco.
3G8
PRINCIPLES OF
especially, to offer incense. Beyond this, veiled in thick darkness,
was the Holy of Holies, into which only the high priest entered, and
he but once a year. This graduated sanctity of the holy places was
fitted to inculcate and impress the lesson of the absolute holiness
of God, whose special presence was manifested in the innermost
sanctuary. The several apartments were also adapted to show the
gradual and progressive stages of divine revelation. The outer
court suggests the early patriarchal period, when, under the open
sky, the devout fathers of families and nations, like Noah, Mel-
chizedek, and Abraham, worshipped the God of heaven.1 The holy
place represents the period of Mosaism, that intermediate stage of
revelation and law, when many a type and symbol foreshadowed
the better things to come, and the exceptional entrance of the high
priest once a^ear within the veil signified that “ the way of the
holies was not yet made manifest ” (Heb. ix, 8). The Holy of Holies
represents the Messianic aeon, when the Christian believer, having
boldness to enter into Hie holiest by the blood of Jesus (Heb. x, 19),
is conceived to “have come to Mount Zion, and to the city of the
living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels,
to the whole assembly and Church of the firstborn who are enrolled
in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to spirits of just men
made perfect, and to Jesus, mediator of the new covenant, and to
the blood of sprinkling that speaks better than that of Abel ”
(Heb. xii, 22-24).
The symbolism of the tabernacle furnishes much of the imagery
used in the records of subsequent revelations, and is, therefore,
worthy of the most careful study.2 But in this, as in other forms
of expressing divine thoughts in figure, we should avoid attempt¬
ing to find meanings in every minute object and allusion. Our
best security is to keep closely to the analogy of biblical symbols
and imagery as seen in a full collation of pertinent examples.3
1 For a somewhat different conception of the import of the holy places, as repre¬
senting periods of revelation, see Atwater, Sacred Tabernacle of the Hebrews, pp.
269-271.
2 Such passages as Psa. xxvii, 5 ; xxxi, 20; xci, 1, are best explained by understand¬
ing an allusion to the Holy of Holies. The symbolico-typical portraiture of the Messi¬
anic kingdom, in the closing chapters of Ezekiel and John, is largely based upon the
symbolism of the tabernacle. See further on pp. 491, 492.
3 V aluable hints for the study of biblical symbolism may be found in works on gen¬
eral symbology, such as Nork’s Etymologisch-symbolisch-mythologisches Worter-
buch (four vols., Stuttgart, 1843-1845), and Wemyss, Clavis Symbolica (Edinb. Bib.
Cabinet, 1835). See also Mills, Sacred Symbology (Edinb., 1853), Dudley, Naology,
etc. (London, 1846), Thompson, Symbols of Christendom (London, 1867).
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
369
CHAPTER XVIII.
SYMBOLIC O-TYPI CAL ACTIONS.
In receiving his divine commission as a prophet, Ezekiel saw a roll
of a book spread out before him, on both sides of
which were written many doleful things. He was Vlslonal actl0ns-
commanded to eat the book, and he obeyed, and found that which
seemed so . full of lamentation and woe to be sweet as honey in his
mouth (Ezek. ii, 8-iii, 3). The same thing is, in substance, re¬
peated in the Apocalypse of John (x, 2, 8-11), and it is there ex¬
pressly added that the book which was sweet as honey in his mouth
became bitter in his stomach. These transactions manifestly took
place in vision. The prophet was lifted into a divine trance or
ecstacy, in which it seemed to him that he saw, heard, obeyed, and
experienced the effects which he describes. It was a symbolical
transaction, performed subjectively in a state of prophetic ecstacy.
It was an impressive method of fastening upon his soul the convic¬
tion of his prophetic mission, and its import was not difficult to
apprehend. The book contained the bitter judgments to be uttered
against “ the house of Israel,” and the prophet was commanded to
cause his stomach to eat it and to fill his bowels with it (iii, 3); that
is, he must make the prophetic word, as it were, a part of himself,
receive it into his innermost being (ver. 10), and there digest it.
And though it may be often bitter to his inner sense, the process
of prophetic obedience yields a sweet experience to the doer.1 “ It
is infinitely sweet and lovely,” says Ilengstenberg, “ to be the organ
and spokesman of the Most High.” 2
But in the fourth and fifth chapters of Ezekiel we are introduced
to a series of four symbolico-typical actions in which SyraboHco_typ_
the prophet appears not as the seer , but th edoer. First icai acts of
he is commanded to take a brick 3 and engrave upon it Ezek* 1V and v’
a portraiture of Jerusalem in a state of siege. He is also to set
1 What Ezekiel arid John did in vision Jeremiah describes in other and more sim¬
ple style. Comp. Jer. xv, 16.
2 Commentary on Ezekiel, in loco.
8 a white brick , so called, according to Gesenius, from the white chalky clay
of which certain bricks were made. In the valley of the Euphrates Ezekiel’s eyes
had, doubtless, become familiar with bricks and stone slabs covered with images and
inscriptions.
24
370
PRINCIPLES OF
up an iron pan between it and himself, and direct his face against
it, as if he were the besieging party, and had erected an iron wall
between himself and the doomed city. This, it was declared, would
be “a sign to the house of Israel” (Ezek. iv, 1-3). Evidently,
therefore, the sign was intended to be outward, actual, and visible,
for how could these things, if imagined only in the prophet’s soul,
be made a sign to Israel ? In the next place he is to lie upon his
left side three hundred and ninety days, and then upon his right
side forty days, thus symbolically bearing the guilt of Israel and
Judah four hundred and thirty days, each day of his prostration
denoting a year of Israel’s abject condition. During this time he
must keep his face turned toward the siege of Jerusalem, and his
arm made bare (comp. Isa. lii, 10), and God lays bands upon him
that he shall not turn from one side to another (Ezek. iv, 4-8).
As the days of this prostration are symbolical of years, so it would
seem the number four hundred and thirty is appropriated from the
term of Israel’s sojourn in Egypt (Exod. xii, 40), the last forty
years of which, when Moses was in exile, were the most oppressive
of all. This number would, from its dark associations, become nat¬
urally symbolical of a period of humiliation and exile; not, how¬
ever, necessarily denoting a chronological period of just so many
years. Still further, the prophet is directed to prepare for himself
The prophet’s f°0(I of divers grains and vegetables, some desirable
food. and gome undesirable, and put them in one vessel, as if
it were necessary to use any and all kinds of available food, and
one vessel would suffice for all. His food and drink are to be
weighed out and measured, and in such small rations as to denote
the most pinching destitution. He is also commanded to bake
his barley cakes with human excrement, to denote how Israel would
eat their defiled bread among the heathen; but in view of his loath¬
ing at the thought of food thus prepared, he is permitted to sub¬
stitute the excrement of cattle for that of man. All this was de¬
signed to symbolize the misery and anguish which should come
upon Israel (verses 9-17). A fourth sign follows in chapter v,
1-4, and is accompanied (verses 5-17) by a divine interpretation.
The prophet is directed to shave off his hair and beard with a
sharp sword, and weigh and divide the numberless hairs in three
parts. One third he is to burn in the midst of the city (i. e., the
city portrayed on the brick), another third he is to smite with the
sword, and another he is to scatter to the wind. These three acts
are explained as prophetic symbols of a threefold judgment im¬
pending over Jerusalem, one part of whose inhabitants shall perish
ly pestilence and famine, another by the slaughter of war, and a
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
371
third by dispersion among the nations, whither also the perils of
the sword shall follow them.
Many able expositors insist that these symbolical actions of the
prophet took place only in vision, as the eating of the The actions out-
roll in chapter ii, 8. And yet they are all obliged to ward and actual,
acknowledge that the language used is such as to make a differ¬
ent impression on the mind of a reader. Certain it is that the eat¬
ing of the roll is described as a vision: “ I saw, and behold a hand
stretched out unto me, and behold in it a roll of a book ” (Ezek.
ii, 9). No such language is used in connexion with the transac¬
tions of chapters iv and v, but the prophet is the doer, and his ac¬
tions are to serve as a sign to the house of Israel.
Five reasons have been urged to show that these actions could
not have been outward and actual: (1) The spectacle of Five objections
such a miniature siege would only have provoked among considered,
the Israelites who saw it a sense of the ludicrous. But even if this
were true, it would by no means disprove that the acts were, never¬
theless, actually done, for many of the noblest oracles of prophecy
were ridiculed and scoffed at by the rebellious house of Israel. The
assertion, however, is purely a subjective fancy of modern inter¬
preters. It is like the untenable notion of those allegorical ex¬
pounders of Canticles, who presume to say that a literal interpreta¬
tion of some parts of the song is monstrous and revolting, but, at the
same time, allegorically descriptive of the holiest things ! If these
symbolic actions of. Ezekiel, literally performed, would have been
childish and ludicrous, would not any conceivable communication
of them to Israel as a sign have been equally ludicrous ? As long
as the actions were possible and practicable, and were calculated to
make a notable impression, there is no objection to their literal oc¬
currence which may not be urged with equal force against their
ideal occurrence.
But it is urged (2) that lying motionless on one side for three
hundred and ninety days was a physical impossibility. Theprostratlon
The prophet’s language, howmver, sufficiently intimates not without in-
that his prostration was not absolutely continuous dur¬
ing the whole twenty-four hours of each of the days. He prepared
his own food and drink, weighed and measured it, and, we may
suppose, that as a Jewish fast of many days allowed eating at
night while requiring abstinence by day, so Ezekiel’s long prostra¬
tion had many incidental reliefs. The prohibition of turning from
one side to another required, at most, only that during the longer
period he must not lie at all on his right side, and during the
last forty days he must not lie at all on his left. (3) Fairbairn
372
PRINCIPLES OF
declares that it would have been a moral impossibility to eat bread
composed of such abominable materials, since it would have in¬
volved a violation of the Mosaic law.1 But it cannot be shown that
the law anywhere prohibits the materials which Ezekiel was ordered
to prepare for his food; and, even if it did, it would not follow that
Ezekiel might not thus symbolically exhibit the penal judgments
that were to visit Israel, when fathers should even eat their own
sons, and sons their fathers (chap, v, 10).
Another objection (4) is that between the dates given at Ezek.
The Dates no b B 2, and viii, 1, there could not have been four hun-
vaiid objection. dred and thirty days for these symbolical actions to
really take place. But between the fifth day of the fourth month
of the fifth year of Jehoiachin’s captivity (chap, i, 1, 2) and
the fifth day of the sixth month of the sixth year (chap, viii, 1)
there intervened one year and two months, or four hundred and
twenty-seven days, a period not only sufficiently approximate to
meet all the necessity of the case, but so closely approximate as to
be in itself an evidence of the real performance of these actions.
And all this might be said after subtracting from the period the
seven days mentioned in chapter iii, 15. But the visions of chap¬
ters viii, xi may have taken place while Ezekiel yet remained lying
on his side. We are not to suppose that his body was literally
transported to Jerusalem, for he expressly states that it was done
“ in visions of God ” (chap, viii, 3). His sitting in his house, with
the elders of Judah before him (viii, l), does not necessarily define
either his or their posture, and the word is commonly used in
the sense of abiding or staying. The long prostration and symbol¬
ical acts of this priest-prophet would naturally attract the elders of
Judah to his house, and cause them to linger long in his presence;
and all this time his arm was made bare, and he prophesied against
Jerusalem (iv, 7). There was nothing in his posture or surround¬
ings to hinder his receiving, during that signal year and two
months, many an additional Avord and vision of Jehovah. (5) It
has been further objected that it was literally impossible for him
to burn the third part of his hair “ in the midst of the city ” (chap,
v, 2). But the city here referred to is to be understood of the
miniature city engraved on the brick, which consideration at once
ob\Tiates the objection.
1 Commentary on Ezekiel, p. 48. Fairbairn’s references to Deut. xiv, 3 ; xxiii, 12-
14, and xiii, 1-5, are pointless in this argument, for those passages have no neces¬
sary bearing on this subject, inasmuch as Ezekiel was excused from using human or¬
dure. Nor was a mixture of various kinds of food a transgression, as Hitzig imagines,
of the law of Lev. xix, 19 ; Deut. xxii, 9.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
373
There appears, therefore, no sufficient reason to deny that Ezekiel’s
symbolic actions, described in chapters iv and v, were No valid argu-
outwardly performed. Nor is it difficult to conceive the ment agaiDSt
impression which these performances must naturally performance,
have made upon the house of Israel — especially upon the elders.
After his first overwhelming vision (see chap, i, 28), and the hear¬
ing of his divine commission, he went to certain captives who dwelt
along the Chebar, and sat down among them in mute astonishment
(D'lptpft) for seven days (chap, iii, 15). Then Jehovah’s word came
to him again, and he went forth into the plain, and there again
beheld the glory of the cherubim (ver. 2‘3), and received the
command to go and shut himself up within his house, and per¬
form the symbolical actions which we have examined. And no
more impressive or signal prophecies could have been given than
these symbolic deeds. Not to have done the things commanded
would have been to withhold from the house of Israel the signs of
judgment which he was commissioned to exhibit. The fourfold
symbol denoted, (1) the coming siege of Jerusalem, (2) the exile
and consequent prostration of Israel and Judah (comp. Isa. 1, 11;
Amos v, 2), which should be like another Egyptian bondage, (3)
the destitution and humiliation of this sad period, and, (4) finally,
the threefold judgment with which the siege should end, namely,
pestilence and famine, the sword, and dispersion among the nations.
Other symbolical actions of this prophet are his removal of his
baggage through the broken wall (chap, xii, 3-8), and other symbou_
his eating his bread with quaking, and drinking water cal actions,
with trembling and anxiety (xii, 18), his deep and bitter sighing
(xxi, 6; Heb. xxi, 11), and his strange deportment on the death of
his wife (xxiv, 16-18). But the symbol of the boiling caldron in
chap, xxiv, 3-12, is expressly presented as an uttered parable, , or
symbolical discourse, and the imagery is, accordingly, ideal, and
not to be understood of an outward action. The symbolical ac¬
tions of Isaiah (xx, 2-4) and Jeremiah (xiii, 11; xviii, 1-6; xix,
1-2; xxvii, 1-14, and xliii, 8-13) are, like those of Ezekiel, amply
explained in their immediate context.
Of all the symbolical actions of the prophets the most difficult
and disputed example is that of Hosea taking unto Hosea’s Ma*-
himself “a woman of whoredoms and children of riage*
whoredoms” (Hosea i, 2), and his loving “a woman beloved of
a friend, and an adulteress” (Hosea iii, 1). The great question
is : Are these transactions to be understood as mere visional
symbols, or as real events in the outward life of the prophet ?
No one will venture to deny that the language of Hosea most
Principles of
874
naturally implies that the events were outward and real. He plain¬
ly says that Jehovah commanded him to go and marry an
plies outward adulterous woman, and that he obeyed. He gives the
reality. name of the woman and the name of her father, and
says that she conceived and bore him a son, whom he named J ezreel,
and subsequently she bore him a daughter and another son, to whom
he also gave significant names as God directed him. There is no
intimation whatever that these events were merely visions of the
soul, or that they were to be published to Israel as a purely para¬
bolic discourse. If the account of any symbolical action on record
is so explicit and positive as to require a literal interpretation, this
surely is one, for its terms are clear, its language is simple, and its
general import not difficult to comprehend.
Whence, then, the difficulties which expositors have felt in its in-
Supposedimpos- terpretation ? It is mainly in the supposition that
gibiiity based such a marriage, commanded by God and effected by
sionofScopehand a holy prophet, was a moral impossibility. A part of
import. the difficulty has also arisen from a misapprehension
of the meaning of certain allusions, and the scope of the entire pas¬
sage. Upon these misapprehensions false assumptions have been
based, and false interpretations have naturally followed. Thus, it
has been assumed that the three children of the prophet, Jezreel,
Lo-ruhamah, and Lo-ammi, were themselves the “ children of whore¬
doms ” whom the prophet was to take, and that the prophet’s wife
herself continued her dissolute life after her marriage with him. Of
all this there is nothing in the text. The most simple and natural
meaning of “a woman of whoredoms and children of whoredoms”
(chap, i, 2) is a woman who is a notable harlot, and who, as such, has
begotten children who also follow her lewd practices. If it had
been otherwise, and the prophet had been directed to take a pure
virgin, the language of our text would have been utterly out of
jfiace. For how could Ilosea know how and where to select a vir¬
gin who would, after her marriage with him, become a harlot?
That the prophet’s wife continued her lewd practices after her
marriage with him is nowhere intimated.
The straightforward, literal statement that the prophet “went
and took Gomer, the daughter of Diblaim, and she conceived and
bare him a son” (ver. 3), is the furthest possible from describing
something which occurred only in idea. The sophism of Hengs-
tenberg, that these things took place “ actually, but not outwardly,” 1
1 Christology of the Old Testament, English translation (Edinb., 1863), vol. i, p.
185. Hengstenberg’s whole discussion of this subject, which assumes to be very full
and thorough, is a notable exhibition of exegetical dogmatism.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
375
is too glaring to be for a moment entertained. If tlie things here
narrated had no outward reality in the prophet’s life,
. . J ii » Gomerand Dib¬
it is an abuse ot language to say they actually occurred, laim not sym-
All attempts to explain the names Gomel* and Dib- 1)0110111 name3*
laim symbolically are manifest failures, and Schmoller is candid
enough to admit that “ we cannot say that, in themselves, they nec¬
essarily demand such an explanation.” 1 Gomel* may indeed denote
completion , but no parallel usage justifies the meaning of “com¬
pleted whoredom,” which most English expositors adopt from Aben
Ezra and Jerome. The verb means either to come to an end
in the sense of ceasing to exist (Psa. vii, 10; xii, 2; lxxvii, 9), or to
complete , or bring to perfection, in a good sense (Psa. Ivii, 3;
cxxxviii, 8; comp, the Chaldee "IDS in Ezra vii, 12). Gesenius and
Fiirst (Heb. Lex.) suggest the meaning of coals, heat , or fireglow.
The name of Diblaim is also too uncertain to warrant a symbol¬
ical interpretation. If we allow its identity with Jig cakes ,
the explanation, “completed whoredom, the daughter of two fig
cakes,” is sufficiently awkward and far-fetched to discredit the
whole interpretation.
Hengstenberg is also guilty of the bold and remarkable assertion
that “ there exists a multitude of symbolical actions, in _
J ’ Hengstenberg s
regard to which it is undeniable and universally admit- unwarrantable
ted (!) that they took place internally only.” 2 He does assertlon-
not deign to inform us what they are, and we may with equal pro¬
priety, therefore, affirm that there is not a single instance of a vis¬
ion, or of a symbolical action, that took place only internally, but that
there is in the context something which clearly indicates its vis¬
ional character. Jeremiah’s taking the wine cup of Jehovah’s fury
and presenting it to the nations (Jer. xxv, 15-33) is not a parallel
case, but is metaphorical, as the expression “ cup of the wine of this
fury” (ver. 15) abundantly shows. This is confirmed by its causal
connexion (\D, for) with verse 14, and by the whole tone and spirit
of the passage, which is highly figurative; see, especially, verses
27-31. The same is true of Zech. xi, 4-14, where the prophet by
inspiration identifies himself with the Lord, and describes no vis¬
ion, or internal transaction, but a highly figurative account of the
relations of the Lord and Israel. The breaking of the staves,
Beauty and Bands, was the Lord’s doing, and not that of the proph
et. Much more scientific and trustworthy is the procedure of
Cowles, who collates all the Old Testament examples bearing on
this point, and exhibits “ a clear line of distinction drawn between
1 Commentary on Hosea (Lange’s Biblework), in loco.
2 Christology, vol. i, p. 186.
376
PRINCIPLES OF
the things seen and shown in vision only, and those which were
done in outward life for symbolic or other purposes. These dis¬
tinctions,” he observes, “ lie not mainly — indeed scarcely at all — in
the nature of the things as convenient to be done, or as impossible,
but in the very form of the statements. In other words, the Lord
has been specially careful to leave us in no doubt as to what was
actually done by his prophets on the one hand, and what was only
seen by them in vision on the other.” 1
The prophet Hosea was not commanded to go and rehearse a par¬
able before the people, nor to relate what occurred to
stated nCot to- him in vision, but to perform certain actions. The time
supposabie. necessary for his marriage, and the birth of the three
children of Gomer, need have been no greater than that in which
Isaiah was required to walk naked and barefoot for a sign (Isa.
xx, 3). The names of the three children are symbolical of certain
purposes and plans of God in his dealings with the house of Israel,
but there is no hint that these children were at all given to licentious¬
ness. Their names point to coming judgments, as did the name of
Isaiah’s son (Isa. viii, 3), but those symbolical names are no dispar¬
agement of the character of the persons who bore them. As long
as Gomer was no man’s lawful wife, her marriage to Hosea, even
though she had become noted as a harlot, and had thus begotten
“children of whoredoms,” involved no breach of law. The law
governing a priest’s marriage (Lev. xxi, 7-15), and which even pro¬
hibited his marrying a widow, did not apply to a prophet more
than to any other man in Israel. That a prophet should marry a
harlot, and take her children with her, was indeed surprising, and
calculated to excite wonder and astonishment; but to excite such
wonder, and deeply impress it on the popular heart, was the very
purpose of the whole transaction. We cannot conceive how the ac¬
tions here recorded could have been made signs and wonders in Is¬
rael (comp. Isa. viii, 18), or have been at all impressive, if they were
known to have never occurred. In that case they would have been
either ridiculed as a silly fancy, or denounced as an utter falsehood.
Their real occurrence, however, would have been a sign and a won¬
der too striking to be trifled with; but it is not probable that when
the people of the whole land had grievously committed whoredom
away from Jehovah (chap, i, 2) their moral sense would have
been so shocked at these actions of a prophet as many modern
critics imagine.
The main purport and scope of the passage may be indicated as
follows: Hosea is commanded to marry a harlot “because the land
1 Notes on the Minor Prophets. Dissertation i, p. 413. New York, 1866.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
377
has grievously committed whoredom away from Jehovah.” The adul¬
terous woman would thus represent idolatrous Israel, Scope of pas_
whose sins are so frequently set forth under this figure, sage indicated.
No particular historical period is indicated, none need be assumed.
All question here as to when Jehovah was married to Israel, or
what Israel was before, and what after such marriage, only tends
to confuse and obscure the main purport of this Scripture, into
which a consideration of such questions does not enter. The mar¬
riage of the prophet to a harlot was a striking symbol of Jehovah’s
relation to a people to whom it would be supposed he would have
utter aversion. Yet of that people, so guilty of spiritual adultery,
will Jehovah beget a holy seed, and the three symbolical names,
Jezreel, Lo-ruhamah, and Lo-ammi, denote the severe measures,
stated in the passage itself, by which the redemption of Israel must
be accomplished. J ezreel may have a double reference, one local,
taken from the well-known valley of this name where Jehu wrought
his bloody deeds (2 Kings x, 1-7); the other etymological (as the
word denotes “God sows,” or, “God will sow”), and indicating
that the very judgments by which the kingdom of the house of
Israel was overthrown were a sowing of the seed from The symbolical
which should spring a regenerated nation. The names Names.
Lo-ruhamah and Lo-ammi symbolize other forms of judgment.
By his unpitying chastisements (Lo-ruhamah) and the utter rejec¬
tion of them as a people (Lo-ammi) will he secure the redemption
of that vast multitude mentioned in verses 10, 11, and chapter ii, 1
(Heb. ii, 1-3), whose glory and triumph will give new significance
to the “day of Jezreel,” and change the name of Lo-ruhamah to
Ruhamah (compassionated), and Lo-ammi to Ammi (my people).
This view fully harmonizes with the language of chapter ii, 22, 23,
and gives a unity and definiteness to the whole of the first two
chapters of Hosea. The oracle of chapter ii, is, accordingly, to be
understood as Jehovah’s appeal to Israel. It is addressed to the
“children of whoredoms,” who are called on to plead with their
mother (ii, 2; Heb. ii, 4). It consists of complaint, threatening,
and promises, and from verse 14 on to the end of the chapter
(Heb., verses 16-25) indicates the process by which Jehovah will
woo and marry that mother of profligate children, making for her
“the valley of Achor as a door of hope” (ver. 15), 1 and thereby
J Achor (")i3U) means troubler , or troubling , and is here used in allusion to the events
recorded in Josh, vii, 24-26. In the valley of Achor, Achan was punished for his
crimes, and the ban was thereby removed from Israel. “ Through the name Achor
this valley became a memorial how the Lord restores his favour to the Church after
the expiation of the guilt by the punishment of the transgressor. And this divine
378
PRINCIPLES OF
accomplishing her redemption. To emphasize this most wonderful
prophecy and promise the marriage of Hosea and Gomel* served as
a most impressive sign.
The third chapter of Hosea records another symbolical action of
Hosea, chap, m, this prophet, by which it is shown, in another form,
another Symbol- jlow jehovah would reform and regenerate the cliil-
simiiar 'purport! dren of Israel. Who this adulterous woman beloved
by a friend (ver. 1) was, we are not told, and conjectures are idle.
The supposition of many, that she was identical with Gomel*, has no
valid foundation, and has many considerations against it. If Gomel*
were intended, she would hardly be designated merely as “ a woman
beloved of a friend,” nor would the prophet be likely to have pur¬
chased her (ver. 2) without some further explanation. In the long
life and ministry of Hosea (comp. chap, i, 1) there was room lor
several events of this kind, and we most naturally assume that in
the meantime his former wife, Gomer, had died. In the very brief
record here made there was no space for such details. Hosea’s
loving this woman, buying her according to oriental custom, and
placing her apart for many days, are explained as a symbol of Israel’s
exile and dispersion until the appointed time of restitution should
come. All that is here said about Israel’s remaining many days
without king, sacrifices, and images was amply fulfilled during the
Assyrian exile. No traces of idolatry or spiritual whoredom re¬
mained in Israel or Judah after the restoration which took place
under Cyrus and his successors. The reason why so many exposi¬
tors have supposed that this chapter refers to another and later
exile arises from failure to note the habit of prophetic discourse to
Repetition of repeat the same things under different symbols. This
symbols. error has misled many into the notion that the adul¬
terous woman of chapter ii, must be identified with the Gomer
of chapter i. As in the prophecies of Daniel we find the composite
image of chapter ii, and the four beasts of chapter vii, only different
symbols of the same events, and the vision of the ram and he-goat,
in chapter viii, going over a part of the same ground again, so here
we should understand that Hosea, at different periods of his life,
depicted by entirely different symbolic actions different phases of
mode of procedure will be repeated in all its essential characteristics. The Lord
will make the valley of troubling a door of hope ; that is, he will so expiate the
sins of his Church and cover them with his grace, that the covenant of fellowship
with him will no more be rent asunder by them ; or he will so display his grace to
the sinners that compassion will manifest itself even in wrath, and through judgment
and mercy the pardoned sinners will be more and more firmly and inwardly united to
him.” — Keil on Hosea, in loco.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
379
the same great facts. Similar repetition abounds in Ezekiel, Zech-
ariah, and the Apocalypse of John.
These actions of Hosea, then, according to all sound laws of
grammatico-historical interpretation, are to be understood as hav¬
ing actually occurred in the life of the prophet, and are to be
classed along with other actions which we have termed symbolico-
typical. Such actions, as we have observed before, combine essen¬
tial elements of both symbol and type, and serve to illustrate at
once the kinship and the difference between them. Serving as signs
and visible images of unseen facts or truths, they are symbolical ;
but being at the same time representative actions of an intelligent
agent, actually and outwardly performed, and pointing especially
to things to come, they are typical. Hence the propriety of desig¬
nating them by the compound name symbolico-typical. And it is
worthy of note that every instance of such actions is accompanied
by an explanation of its import, more or less detailed.
The miracles of our Lord may not improperly be spoken of as
symbolico-typical. They were a rffiela real repara, signs 0ur l^s mir_
and wonders , and they all, without exception, have a ades symbolical,
moral and spiritual significance. The cleansing of the leper symbol¬
ized the power of Christ to heal the sinner, and so all his miracles
of love and mercy bear the character of redemptive acts, and are
typically prophetical of what he is evermore doing in his reign of
grace. The stilling of the tempest, the walking on the sea, and the
opening of the eyes of the blind furnish suggestive lessons of divine
grace and power, as some of the noblest hymns of the Church at¬
test. The miracle of the water made wine, says Trench, “ may be
taken as the sign and symbol of all which Christ is evermore doing
in the world, ennobling all that he touches, making saints out of
sinners, angels out of men, and in the end heaven out of earth, a
new paradise of God out of the old wilderness of the world.” 1
Hengstenberg observes that Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusa¬
lem, as predicted in Zech. ix, 10, “was a symbolical action, the
design and purport of which were to assert his royal dignity,
and to set forth in a living picture the true nature of his person
and kingdom, in opposition to the false notions of both friends and
foes. Apart, therefore, from the prophecy, the entry had its own
peculiar meaning, as, in fact, was the case with every act of Christ
and every event of his life.” 9
1 Notes on the Miracles of our Lord, p. 98. New York, 1858.
2 Christology of the Old Testament, vol. iii, p. 375. Edinb., 1863.
380
PRINCIPLES OP
CHAPTER XIX.
SYMBOLIC NUMBERS, NAMES, AND COLOURS.
Every observant reader of the Bible has had his attention arrested
at times by what seemed a mystical or symbolical use of numbers.
The numbers three, four, seven, ten, and twelve, especially, have a
significance worthy of most careful study. Certain well-known
proper names, as Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon, are also used in a
mystic sense, and the colours red, black, and white are understood
to be so associated with the ideas respectively of bloodshed, evil,
and purity as to have become emblematic of those ideas. The only
Process of as- valid method of ascertaining the symbolical meaning
certainiug Sym- an(j usap-e Qf such numbers, names, and colours in the
bers, etc. Scriptures, is by an ample collation and study ot the
passages where they occur. The hermeneutical process is therefore
essentially the same as that by which we ascertain the usus loquendi
of words, and the province of hermeneutics is, not to furnish an
elaborate discussion of the subject, but to exhibit the principles
and methods by which such a discussion should be carried out.1
Symbolical Numbers.
The number one, as being the first, the startingpoint, the parent,
and source of all numbers, the representative of unity, might natu¬
rally be supposed to possess some mystical significance, and yet there
appears no evidence that it is ever used in any such sense in the
Scriptures. It has a notable emphasis in that watchword of Israel-
itish faith, “Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah”
(Deut. vi, 4; comp. Mark xii, 29, 32; 1 Cor. viii, 4), but neither
here nor elsewhere is the number used in any other than its literal
1 On the symbolism of numbers see Bahr, Symbolik des mosaischen Cultus, vol. i,
(1874), pp. 185-282 ; Kurtz, Ueber die symbolische Dignitat der Zahlen an der Stifts-
hiitte, in the Studien und Kritiken for 1844, pp. 315-370; Lammert, Zur Revision
der biblischen Zahlensymbolik, in the Jahrbucher fur deutsche Theologie for 1864,
pp. 1-49 ; and Engelhardt, Einiges fiber symbolische Zahlen, in the same periodical
for 1866, pp. 301-332 ; Kliefoth, Die Zahlensymbolik der heiligen Schrift, in Dieck-
hoff und Kliefoth’s Theologische Zeitschrift for 1862, pp. 1-89, 341-453, and 509-
623; Stuart’s Excursus (appropriating largely from Bahr) on the Symbolical Use of
Numbers in the Apocalypse, in his Commentary on the Apocalypse, vol. ii, pp. 409—
434; White, Symbolical Numbers of Scripture (Edinb., 1868).
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
381
sense. The number three, however, is employed in such relations as
to suggest that it is especially the number of divine full- The number
ness in unity. Bahr seems altogether too fanciful when Tbree*
he says : “ It lies in the very nature of the number three, that
is, in its relation to the two preceding numbers one and two, that it
forms in the progression of numbers the first conclusion (Abschluss) ;
for the one is first made a number by being followed by the two,
but the two as such represents separation, difference, contrast, and
this becomes cancelled by the number three, so that three is in fact
the first finished, true, and complete unity.” 1 But he goes on to say
that every true unity comprises a trinity, and instances the familiar
triads, beginning, middle, and end; past, present, and future; un¬
der, midst, and upper ; and he cites from many heathen sources to
show the mystic significance that everywhere attached to the num¬
ber three. He also cites from the Scripture such triads as the three
men who appeared to Abraham (Gen. xviii, 2), the three forefathers
of the children of Israel, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Exod. iii, 6),
the three sons of Noah, by whom the postdiluvian world was peo¬
pled (Gen. ix, 19), the three constituent parts of the universe, heav¬
en, earth, and sea (Exod. xx, 11; Psa. cxlvi, 6), the cedar wood,
scarlet, and hyssop, used in the ceremonial purification (Lev. xiv, 6 ;
Num. xix, 6), the threefold cord that is not quickly broken (Eccl.
iv, 12), and other less noticeable examples. More important and
conspicuous, however, as exhibiting a sacredness in the number
three, are those texts which associate it immediately with the divine
name. These are the thrice-repeated benediction of Num. vi, 24-26,
or threefold putting the name of Jehovah (ver. 27) upon the chil¬
dren of Israel ; the threefold name in the formula of baptism (Matt,
xxviii, 19), and the apostolic benediction (2 Cor. xiii, 14); and the
trisagion of Isa. vi, 3, and Rev. iv, 8, accompanied in the latter
passage by the three divine titles, Lord, God, and Almighty, and
the additional words “who was, and who is, and who is to come.”
From all this it would appear, as Stuart2 has observed, “that the
doctrine of a Trinity in the Godhead lies much deeper than the New-
Platonic philosophy, to which so many have been accustomed to refer
it. An original impression of the character in question plainly over¬
spread all the ancient oriental world . . . That many philosophistic
and superstitious conceits have been mixed with it, in process of
time, proves nothing against the general fact as stated. And this
being admitted, we cease to think it strange that such distinction and
significancy have been given in the Scriptures to the number three.”
1 Symbolik des mosaischen Cultus, p. 205.
2 Commentary on Apocalypse, vol. ii, pp. 419, 420.
382
PRINCIPLES OF
If its peculiar usage in connexion with the divine Name gives
mystical significance to the number three, and entitles it to be
called “the number of God,” the use of the number four
Four‘ in the Scriptures would in like manner entitle it to be
called “ the number of the world,” or of the visible creation. Thus
we have the four winds of heaven (Jer. xlix, 36; Ezek. xxxvii, 9;
Dan. vii, 2 ; viii, 8 ; Zecli. ii, 6 ; vi, 5 ; JVIatt. xxiv, 31 ; JVIaik xiii, 27 ;
Rev. vii, 1), the four corners or extremities of the earth (Isa. xi, 12 ;
Ezek. vii, 2 ; Rev. vii, 1 ; xx, 8), corresponding, doubtless, with the
four points of the compass, east, west, north, and south (1 Chron.
ix, 24; Psa. cvii, 3; Luke xiii, 29), and the four seasons. Notice¬
able also are the four living creatures in Ezek. i, 5, each with four
faces, four wings, four hands, and connected with four wheels ; and
in Zechariah the four horns (i, 18), the four smiths (i, 20), and the
four chariots (vi, l).
The number seven, being the sum of four and three, may natural¬
ly be supposed to symbolize some mystical union of God
v n’ with the world, and accordingly, may be called the sacred
number of the covenant between God and his creation. The heb¬
domad, or period of seven days, is so essentially associated with the
record of creation (Gen. ii, 2, 3; Exod. xx, 8-11), that from the
beginning a sevenfold division of time was recognized among the
ancient nations. In the Scripture it is peculiarly a ritual number.
In establishing his covenant with Abraham God ordained that seven
days must pass after the birth of a child, and then, upon the eighth
day, he must be circumcised (Gen. xvii, 12; comp. Lev. xii, 2, 3).
The passover feast continued seven days (Exod. xii, 15). The feast
of Pentecost was held seven weeks after the day of the wave offer¬
ing (Lev. xxiii, 15). The feast of trumpets occurred in the seventh
month (Lev. xxiii, 24), and seven times seven years brought round
the year of jubilee (Lev. xxv, 8). The blood of the sin offering was
sprinkled seven times before the Lord (Lev. iv, 6). The ceremonial
cleansing of the leper required that he be sprinkled seven times
with blood and seven times with oil, that he tarry abroad outside
of his tent seven days (Lev. xiv. 7, 8; xvi, 27), and that his house
also be sprinkled seven times (Lev. xiv, 51). Contact with a dead
body and other kinds of ceremonial uncleanness required a purifi¬
cation of seven days (Num. xix, 11 ; Lev. xv, 13, 24). And so the
idea of covenant relations and obligations seems to be associated
with this sacred number. Jehovah confirmed his word to Joshua
and Israel, when for seven days seven priests with seven trumpets
compassed Jericho, and on the seventh day compassed the city
seven times (Josh, vi, 13-15). The golden candlestick had seven
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
333
lamps (Exod. xxxviii, 23). The seven churches, seven stars, seven
seals, seven trumpets, seven thunders, and seven last plagues of the
Apocalypse are of similar mystical significance.
The number ten completes the list of primary numbers, and is
made the basis of all further numeration. Hence, it is
rpen
naturally regarded as the number of rounded fulness
or completeness. The Hebrew word for ten, "ifcyy, is believed to
favour this idea. Gesenius (Lex.) traces it to a root which conveys
the idea of conjunction , and observes that “etymologists agree in
deriving this form from the conjunction of the ten fingers.” Furst
adopts the same fundamental idea, and defipes the word as if it
were expressive of “ union, association; hence multitude , heap, mul¬
tiplicity ” (Heb. Lex). And this general idea is sustained by the
usage of the number. Thus the Decalogue, the totality and sub¬
stance of the whole Torah, or Law, is spoken of as the ten words
Exod. xxxiv, 28; Dent, iv, 13; x, 4); ten elders constitute an an¬
cient Israelitish court (Ruth iv, 2); ten princes represent the tribes
of Israel (Josh, xxii, 14); ten virgins go forth to meet the bride¬
groom (Matt, xxv, 1). And, in a more general way, ten times is
equivalent to many times (Gen. xxxi, 7, 41; Job xix, 3), ten wom¬
en means many women (Lev. xxvi, 26), ten sons many sons (1 Sam.
i, 8), ten mighty ones are many mighty ones (Eccles. vii, 19), and
the ten horns .of Dan. vii, 7, 24; Rev. xii, 3; xiii, 1; xvii, 12, may
fittingly symbolize many kings.1
The symbolical use of the number twelve in Scripture appears
to have fundamental allusion to the twelve tribes of
, ... i . Twelve.
Israel. Thus Moses erects “twelve pillars according
to the twelve tribes of Israel ” (Exod. xxiv, 4), and there were
twelve stones in the breastplate of the high priest (Exod. xxviii, 21),
twelve cakes of showbread (Lev. xxiv, 5), twelve bullocks, twelve
rams, twelve lambs, and twelve kids for offerings of dedication
(Num. vii, 87), and many other like instances. In the New Testa¬
ment we have the twelve apostles, twelve times twelve thousand
are sealed out of the tribes of Israel, twelve thousand from each
tribe (Rev. vii, 4-8), and the New Jerusalem has twelve gates,
bearing the names of the twelve tribes, and guarded by twelve an¬
gels (Rev. xxi, 12), and its wall has twelve foundations, bearing
the twelve names of the apostles (xxi, 14). Twelve, then, may
properly be called the mystical number of God’s chosen people.
It is thus by collation and comparison of the peculiar uses of these
numbers that we can arrive at any safe conclusion as to their
1 Compare Wemyss, Clavis Symbolica, under the word Ten, and Bahr, Symbolik,
vol. i, pp. 223, 224.
384
PRINCIPLES OF
symbolical import. But allowing that they have such import as the
symbolical does foregoing examples indicate, we must not suppose that
eluded it e r al they thereby necessarily lose their literal and proper
sense. meaning. The number ten, as shown above, and some
few instances of the number seven (Psa. xii, 6; Ixxix, 12; Prov.
xxvi, 16; Isa. iv, 4; Dan. iv, 16), authorize us to say that they are
used sometimes indefinitely in the sense of many. But when, for
example, it is written that seven priests, with seven trumpets, com¬
passed Jericho on the seventh day seven times (Josh, vi, 13-15), we
understand the statements in their literal sense. These things
were done just so many times, but the symbolism of the sevens
suggests that in this signal overthrow of Jericho God was confirm¬
ing his covenant and promises to give into the hand of his chosen
people their enemies and the land they occupied (comp. Exod.
xxiii, 31 ; Josh, ii, 9, 24; vi, 2). And so the sounding of the seven
trumpets of the Apocalypse completed the mystery of God as de¬
clared to his prophets (Rev. x, 7), so that when the seventh angel
sounded great voices in heaven said: “The kingdom of the world
is become that of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign
forever and ever” (Rev. xii, 15).
The “ time and times and dividing (or half) of a time ” (Dan. vii,
Time, times, 25 ; xii, 7; Rev. xii, 13) is commonly and with reason
and half a time, believed to stand for three years and a half, a time de¬
noting a year. A comparison of verses 6 and 12 of' Rev. xii shows
this period to be the same as twelve hundred and sixty days, or ex¬
actly three and a half years, reckoning three hundred and sixty
days to a year. But as this number is in every case used to
denote a period of woe and disaster to the Church or people of
God (Rev. xi, 2), we may regard it as symbolical. It is a divided
seven (comp. Dan. ix, 27) as if suggesting the thought of a broken
covenant, an interrupted sacrifice, a triumph of the enemy of God.
The twelve hundred and sixty days are also equivalent to forty-
Forty-two two months (Rev. xi, 2, 3; xiii, 5), reckoning thirty
months. days to a month, and, thus used, it is probably to be
regarded, not as an exact designation of just so many days, but as
a round number readily reckoned and remembered, and approxi¬
mating the exact length of the period denoted with sufficient near¬
ness. In Dan. viii, 14 we have the peculiar expression “two thou¬
sand and three hundred evening mornings,” which some explain as
meaning so many days, in allusion to Gen. i, 5, where evening and
morning constitute one day. Others, however, understand so many
morning and evening sacrifices, which would require half the num¬
ber of days (eleven hundred and fifty). Perhaps, however, the
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
38a
word two thousand, should be pointed D'BJN, one thousand,
then we would have thirteen hundred days of evening and morning.
This closely approximates the twelve hundred and ninety days of
Dan. xii, 11, which, when compared with the thirteen hundred and
thirty-five days mentioned in the next verse, seems rather to show
that in the peculiarly exact designations of time here recorded we
have not mystical or symbolical numbers, but literal designations
of the length of important periods.
The number forty designates in so many places the duration of a
penal judgment, either forty days or forty years, that
it may be regarded as symbolic of a period of judg¬
ment. The forty days of the flood (Gen. vii, 4, 12, 17), the forty
years of Israel’s wandering in the wilderness (Num. xiv, 34), the
forty stripes with which a convicted criminal was to be beaten
(Deut. xxv, 3), the forty years of Egypt’s desolation (Ezek. xxix,
11, 12), and the forty days and nights during which Moses, Elijah,
and Jesus fasted (Exod. xxiv, 28; 1 Kings xix, 8; Matt, iv, 2), all
favour this jdea. But there is no reason to suppose that in all
these cases the number forty is not also used in its proper and lit¬
eral sense. The symbolism, if any, arises from the association of
the number with a period of punishment or trial.
The number seventy is also noticeable as being that of the total¬
ity of Jacob’s sons (Gen. xlvi, 27; Exod. i, 5; Deut. Seyenty
x, 22) and of the elders of Israel (Exod. xxiv, 1, 9;
Num. xi, 24); the Jews were doomed to seventy years of Babylo¬
nian exile (Jer. xxv, 11, 12; Dan. ix, 2); seventy weeks distinguish
one of Daniel’s most important prophecies (Dan. ix, 24), and our
Lord appointed seventy other disciples besides the twelve (Luke
x, 1). Auberlen observes: “ The number seventy is ten multiplied
by seven ; the human is here moulded and fixed by the divine.
For this reason the seventy years of exile are a symbolical sign of
the time during which the power of the world would, according to
God’s will, triumph over Israel, during which it would execute the
divine judgments on God’s people.” 1
We have already seen (p. 370), in discussing the symbolical ac¬
tions of Ezekiel, that the four hundred and thirty days dcg_
of his prostration formed a symbolical period in allu- ignations of
sion to the four hundred and thirty (390-f-40) years of tirne‘
the Egyptian bondage (Exod. xii, 40). Like the number forty,
as shown above, it was associated with a period of discipline and
sorrow. Each day of the prophet’s prostration represented a year
of Israel’s humiliation and judgment (Ezek. iv, 6), as the forty days
1 The Prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation, Eng. Trans., p. 134. Edinb., 1856.
25
386
PRINCIPLES OP
during which the spies searched the land of Canaan were typical
of the years of Israel’s wandering and wasting in the wilderness
(Num. xiv, 33, 34).
Here it is in place to examine the so-called “ year-day theory ”
The year-day °f prophetic interpretation, so prevalent among modern
theory. expositors.1 Upon the statement of the two passages
just cited from Numbers and Ezekiel, and also upon supposed ne¬
cessities of apocalyptic interpretation, a large number of modern
writers on prophecy have advanced the theory that the word day,
or days , is to be understood in prophetic designations of time as
denoting years. This theory has been applied especially to the
t ime, times, and dividing of a time ” in Dan. vii, 25, xii, 7, and
Rev. xii, 14; the twelve hundred and sixty days of Rev. xi, 3; xii, 0;
and also by many to the two thousand three hundred days of Dan.
via, 14, and the twelve hundred and ninety and thirteen hundred
and thirty-five days of Dan. xii, 11, 12. The forty and two months
of Rev. xi, 2, and xiii, 5, are, according to this theory, to be multi¬
plied by thirty (42X30=1260), and then the result in days is to be
understood as so many years.- After the like manner, the time,
tim.es, and a half, are first understood as three years and a half, and
i lien the years are multiplied by three hundred and sixty, a round
number for the days of a year, and the result (1260) is understood
as designating, not so many days, but so many years.
If this is a correct theory of interpreting the designations of
a Mieory so far ProP^etic it is obvious that it is a most important
reaching and one. It is necessarily so farreaching in its practical
I hou kmkivc resu^'s as fundamentally to affect one’s whole plan and
most valid sup- process of exposition. Such a theory, surely, ought to
be supported by the most convincing ami incontrovert¬
ible reasons. And yet, upon the most careful examination, we do
not find that it has any sufficient warrant in the Scripture, and the
expositions of its advocates are not of a character likely to com¬
mend it to the critical mind. Against it we urge the five follow¬
ing considerations:
1. This theory derives no valid support from the passages in
Numbers and Ezekiel already referred to. In Num.
Has no support • . T , . , , ..
in Num. xiv and Xlv? 33, 34, Jehovah s word to Israel simply states that
Lzek. iv. they must suffer for their iniquities forty years, “ in the
1 See on this subject Stuart’s article on the Designation of Time in the Apocalypse
• 1 the American Biblical Repository for Jan., 1835. Also a reply to the same by Dr.
Jllen in the same periodical for July, 1840. Compare also Cowles’ Dissertation on the
subject at the end of his Commentary on Daniel. Elliott’s laboured argument on this
subject (Horas Apocalyptic®, vol. iii, pp. 260-298) is mainly a series of presumptions.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
387
number of the days which ye searched the land, forty days, a day
for the year, a day for the year.” There is no possibility of mis¬
understanding this. The spies were absent forty days searching
the land of Canaan (Num. xiii, 25), and when they returned they
brought back a bad report of the country, and spread disaffection,
murmuring, and rebellion through the whole congregation of Israel
(xiv, 2-4). Thereupon the divine sentence of judgment was pro¬
nounced upon that generation, and they were condemned to “ graze
(D'lh, pasture, feed) in the wilderness forty years ” (xiv, 33). Here
then is certainly no ground on which to base the universal prop¬
osition that, in prophetic designations of time, a day means a year.
The passage is exceptional and explicit, and the words are used in
a strictly literal sense; the days evidently mean days, and the years
mean years. The same is true in every particular of the days and
years mentioned in Ezek. iv, 5, 6. The days of his prostration
were literal days, and they were typical of years, as is explicitly
stated. But to derive from this sj'mbolico-typical action of Ezekiel
a hermeneutical principle or law of universal application, namely,
that days in prophecy mean years, would be a most unwarrantable
procedure.
2. If the two passages now noticed were expressive of a universal
law, we certainly would expect to find it sustained and .
capable of illustration by examples of fulfilled prophecy, by Prophetic
But examples bearing on this point are overwhelmingly Anal°£y*
against the theory in question. God’s word to Noah was: “Yet
seven days, I will cause it to rain upon the land forty days and forty
nights” (Gen. vii, 4). Did any one ever imagine these days were
symbolical of years? Or wdll it be pretended that the mention of
nights along with days removes the prophecy from the category of
those scriptures which have a mystical import? God’s word to
Abraham was that his seed should be afflicted in a foreign land
four hundred years (Gen. xv, 13). Must we multiply these years
by three hundred and sixty to know the real time intended ? Isaiah
prophesied that Ephraim should be broken within threescore and
five years (Isa. vii, 8); but who ever dreamed that this must be re¬
solved into days in order to find the period of Ephraim’s fall?
Was it ever sagely believed that the three years of Moab’s glory,
referred to in Isa. xvi, 14, must be multiplied by three- hundred and
sixty in order to find the import of what Jehovah had spoken con¬
cerning it? Was it by such mathematical calculation as this that
Daniel " understood in the books the number of the years, which
was a word of Jehovah to Jeremiah (comp. Jer. xxv, 12) the
prophet, to complete as to the desolations of Jerusalem seventy
338
PRINCIPLES OP
years” (Dan. ix, 2)? Or is it supposable that the seventy years of
Jeremiah’s prophecy were ever intended to he manipulated by such
calculations? In short, this theory breaks down utterly when an
appeal is taken to the analogy of prophetic scriptures. If the time,
times, and a half of Dan. vii, 25 means three and a half years mul¬
tiplied by three hundred and sixty, that is, twelve hundred and
sixty years, then the seven times of Dan. iv, 16, 32, should mean
seven times three hundred and sixty, or two thousand five hun¬
dred and twenty years. Or if in one prophecy of the future,
twelve hundred and sixty days must, without any accompanying
qualification, or any statement to that effect in the context, be un¬
derstood as denoting so many years, then the advocates of such a
theory must show pertinent and valid reason why the forty days of
Jonah’s prophecy against Nineveh (Jon. iii, 4) are not to be also
understood as denoting forty years.
3. The year-day theory is thought to have support in Daniel’s
Daniel's proph- prophecy of the seventy weeks (Dan. ix, 24-27). But
enty°weeksSnot thsrt Prophecy says not a word about days or years, but
parallel. seventy heptads , or sevens The position and
gender of the word indicate its peculiar significance. It nowhere
else occurs in the masculine except in Dan. x, 2, 3, where it is ex¬
pressly defined as denoting heptads of days (D'D}. D'jn^). Unaccom¬
panied by any such limiting word, and standing in such an emphatic
position at the beginning of ver. 24, we have reason to infer at once
that it involves some mystical import. When, now, we observe
that it is a Messianic oracle, granted to Daniel when his mind was
full of meditations upon Jeremiah’s prophecy of the seventy years
of Jewish exile (ver. 2), and in answer to his ardent supplications,
we most naturally understand the seventy heptads as heptads of
years. But this admission furnishes slender support to such a
sweeping theory as would logically bring all prophetic designations
of time to the principle that days mean years.
4. It has been argued that in such passages as Judg. xvii, 10;
Days nowhere 1 Sam* ^ 2 Cllron- xxb 19, and Isa. xxxii, 10, the
properly mean word days is used to denote years , and “if this word
be sometimes thus used in Scripture in places not pro¬
phetic, why should it not be thus employed in prophetic passages?”1
But a critical examination of those passages will show that the word
for days is not really used in the sense of years. In Judg. xvii, 10,
Micah says to the Levite: “Dwell with me, and be to me for a
father and a priest, and I will give thee ten (pieces) of silver for
1 See Allen’s article “ On the Designations of Time in Daniel and John,” in The
'imerican Biblical Repository, for July, 1840, p. 39.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS. 389
the days ” (D'E|6), that is, for the days that he should dwell with
him as a priest. In 1 Sam. ii, 19, it is said that Samuel’s mother
made him a little robe, and brought it up to him from days to days
in her going up along with her husband to offer the sacrifice of the
days.” Here the reference is to the particular days of going up to
the tabernacle to worship and sacrifice, and the exact sense is not
brought out by the common version, “year by year” or “yearly.”
They may have gone up several times during the year at the days
of the great national feasts. And this appears from a comparison
of 1 Sam. i, 3 and 7, where, in the first place, it is said that Elkanah
went up from days to days , and in ver. 7, “so he did year by year”
That is, he went up three times a year according to the law (Exod.
xxiii, 14-17) “from days to days,” as the well-known national
feastdays came round; and his wife generally accompanied him.
2 Chron. xxi, 1 9 is literally : “ And it came to pass at days from
days (i. e., after several days), and about the time of the going out
(expiration) of the end, at two days, his bowels went out,” etc.1
Similarly, Isa. xxxii, 10: “Days above a year shall ye be troubled,”
etc. That is, more than a year shall ye be troubled.8 The most
that can be said of such a use of the word days, is, that it is used
indefinitely in a proverbial and idiomatic way; but such a usage by
no means justifies the broad proposition that a day means a year.
5. The advocates of the year-day theory rest their strongest argu¬
ment, however, upon the necessity of such a theory for Disproved by
what they regard the true explanation of certain proph- inter"
ecies. They affirm that the three times and a half of pretation.
Dan. vii, 25, and the twelve hundred and sixty days of Rev. xii, 6,
and their parallels, are incapable of a literal interpretation. And
so, carrying the predictions both of Daniel and John down into
the history of modern Europe for explanation, most of these
writers understand the twelve hundred and sixty year-days as
designating the period of the Roman Papacy. Mr. William Mil¬
ler, famous in the last generation for the sensation he produced,
and the large following he had, adopted a scheme of interpreting
not only the twelve hundred and sixty days, but also the twelve
hundred and ninety, and the thirteen hundred and thirty-five
(of Dan. xii, 11, 12), so that he ascertained and published with
great assurance that the coming of Christ would take place in
October, 1843. We have lived to see his theories thoroughly ex¬
ploded, and yet there have not been wanting others who have
adopted his hermeneutical principles, and named A. D. 1866 and
1 See Keil and Bertheau on Chronicles, in loco.
2 See Alexander on Isaiah, in loco.
390
PRINCIPLES OF
A. D. 1870 as “the time of the end.” A theory which is so desti¬
tute of scriptural analogy and support as we have seen above, and
presumes to rest on such a slender showing of divine authority, is
on those grounds alone to be suspected; but when it has again
and again proved to be false and misleading in its application, wc
may safely reject it, as furnishing no valid principle or rule in a
true science of hermeneutics.1 Those who have supposed it to be
necessary for the exposition of apocalyptic prophecies, should be¬
gin to feel that their systems of interpretation are in error.
The duration of the thousand years, or the millenial reign, men-
The th0llsand tioned in Rev. xx, 2-7, has been variously estimated,
years of Rev. Most of those who advocate the year-day theory have
singularly agreed to understand this thousand years lit¬
erally. With them days mean years, and times mean years, to be
resolved into three hundred and sixty days each, but the thousand
years of the Apocalypse are literally and exactly a thousand years !
Many, however, understand this number as denoting an indefinitely
long period, and some have not scrupled to apply to it the theory
of a day for a year, and multiplying by three hundred and sixty,
estimate the length of the millenium at three hundred and sixty
thousand years. But in this case we have no analogy, no real
parallel, in other parts of scripture. Allen himself candidly ad¬
mits that “ there is nothing in the customary use of the phrase a
thousand, in other places, which will determine its import in the
Book of Revelation. The probability of its being used there defi¬
nitely or indefinitely must be determined by examining the place
itself, and from the nature of the case.”2 This is a very safe and
proper rule, and it may well be added that, as we have found the
number ten to symbolize the general idea of fulness, totality, com¬
pleteness, so not improbably the number one thousand may stand
as the symbolic number of manifold fulness, the rounded Eeon of
Messianic triumph, (6 alibv yekXov), during which he shall abolish
all rule and all authority and power, and put all his enemies un¬
der his feet (1 Cor. xv, 24, 25), and bring in the fulness (to TcXrj-
pw/m) of both Jews and Gentiles (Rom. xi, 12, 25).
1 It may be said that Bengel’s long-ago exploded theory of explaining apocalyptic
designations of time is worthy of as much credence as this more popular year-day
theory. In his Erklarten Offenbarung Johannis (1740) he takes the mystic number
666 (Rev. xiii, 18) for his startingpoint, and dividing it by 42 months, he makes a
prophetic month equal 16? years. His prophetic days were of corresponding length,
amounting to about half a year, and his scheme fixed the end of all things in A.D. 1836.
In favour of Bengel it may be said that he started with a number which is propound¬
ed as a riddle, which is more than we can say in favour of these other theorists.
8 American Biblical Repository, July, 1840, p. 47.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
391
Symbolical Names.
A symbolical use of proper names is apparent in such passages as
Rev. xi, 8, where the great city, in which the bodies of sodom and
the slain witnesses were exposed, and “ where also their ^ypt-
Lord was crucified,” is called, spiritually,1 Sodorn and Egypt. Evi¬
dently this wicked city, whether we understand Jerusalem or Rome,
is so designated because its moral corruptions and bitter persecut¬
ing spirit were like those of Sodorn and Egypt, both famous in
Jewish history for these ungodly qualities. In a similar way Isaiah
likens Judah and Jerusalem to Sodom and Gomorrah (Isa. i, 9, 10).
Compare also Jer. xxiii, 14. In Ezek. xvi, 44-59, the abominations
of Jerusalem are made to appear loathsome by comparison and con¬
trast with Samaria on one side and Sodom on the other.
In like maimer “ Babylon the great,” is evidently a symbolical
name in Rev. xiv, 8; xvi, 19; xvii, 5; xviii, 2, etc. Babylon and
Whether the name is used to denote the same city as Jerusalem,
that called Sodom and Egypt in chapter xi, 8, or some other city,
its mystical designation is to be explained, like that of Sodom and
Egypt, as arising from Jewish historical associations with Babylon,
the great city of the exile. That city could, in Jewish thought, he
associated only with oppression and woe, and tlieir antipathy to it
as a persecuting power is well expressed in Psa. cxxxvii. The op¬
posite of Babylon, the Harlot, in the Apocalypse, is J erusalem, the
Bride (Rev. xxi, 9, 10). So, too, in the psalm just referred to, the
opposite of Babylon, with its rivers and willows, was Jerusalem
and Mount Zion. And the careful student will note that, as one of
the seven angels said to the prophet, “Come hither,” and then
a carried him away in spirit into a wilderness ” and showed him the
mystic Babylon, the Harlot (Rev. xvii, 1-3), so also one of the
same class of angels addressed him with like words, and then “car¬
ried him away in spirit into a mountain great and high,” and showed
him the holy Jerusalem, the Bride (chap, xxi, 9, 10). And if the
Bride denotes the true Church of the people and saints of the Most
High, doubtless the Harlot represents the false and apostate Church,
historically guilty of the blood of saints and martyrs. Which great
city best represents that harlot — Rome, which truly has been a bitter
persecutor, or Jerusalem, so often called a harlot by the prophets,
and charged by Jesus himself as guilty of “all the righteous blood
poured out upon the land, from the blood of Abel, the righteous,
1 UvevfiaTiKuc, i. e., by a mental discernment intensified and exalted by a divine in¬
spiration which enables one to see things according to their real and spiritual
nature.
392
PRINCIPLES OP
iteturn to Egypt.
unto the blood of Zachariah, son of Barachiah” (Matt, xxiii, 35) —
where also their Lord and ours was crucified — each expositor will
determine for himself.
The name of Egypt is used symbolically in Hos. viii, 13, where
Ephraim is sentenced, on account of sin, to “ return to
Egypt.” The name had become proverbial as the land
of bondage (Exod. xx, 2), and Moses had threatened such a return
in his warnings and admonitions addressed to Israel (Deut. xxviii,
68). In Hos. ix, 3, this return to Egypt is, by the Hebrew poetic
parallelism of the passage, made equivalent to eating unclean
things in the land of Asshur. Hence the Assyrian exile is viewed
as another Egyptian bondage.
The names of David and Elijah are used after the same sym-
David and Eli- bolical manner to designate, prophetically, the prince
3al1- Messiah and the prophet John the Baptist. In Ezek.
xxxiv, 23, 24, Jehovah declares that he will set his servant
David for a shepherd over his people, and for a prince among
them. Here, assuredly, the language cannot be taken literally,
and no one will contend that the historical David is to appear
again in fulfilment of this prediction. Compare Ezek. xxxvii, 24;
Jer. xxx, 9; Hos. iii, 5. So, too, the prophecy of the coming of
Elijah in Mai. iv, 5, was fulfilled in John the Baptist (Matt, xi, 14;
xvii, 10-13).
The name Ariel is used in Isa. xxix, 1, 2, V, as a symbolical des-
Ariei. ignation of Jerusalem, but its mystical import is quite
uncertain. The word, according to Gesenius,1 may de¬
note either lion of God , or altar of God; but whether it should be
understood as denoting the city of lion-like heroes, or of invincible
strength, or as the city of the altar place, it is impossible to de¬
termine. Fuerst thinks (Heb. Lex.), in view of Isa. xxxi, 9, “ where
Jerusalem is celebrated as a sacred hearth of the everlasting fire, it
is more advisable to choose this signification.”
A hostile, oppressive world-power is designated in Isa. xxvii, 1,
Leviathan, the as “ Leviathan, a flying serpent, Leviathan, a crooked
serpent. serpent ... a dragon which is in the sea.” Some
think three different hostile powers are meant, but the repetition of
the name Leviathan, and 'the poetic parallelism of the passage, are
against that view. Egypt, Assyria, Babylon. Media, Persia, and
Rome have all been suggested as the hostile power intended. It
is, perhaps, best to understand it generically as a symbolic name for
any and every godless world-power that sets itself up as an opposer
and oppressor of the people of God.
1 Commentar uber den Jcsaia, in loco.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
393
Symbolism of Colours.
The setting of the rainbow in the cloud for a covenant sign be¬
tween God and the land, that no flood of waters should
again destroy all flesh (Gen. ix, 8-1 V) would naturally tabernacle coi-
associate the prominent colours of that bow with ideas ours*
of heavenly grace. In the construction of the tabernacle four col¬
ours are prominent, blue , purple , scarlet , and white (Exod. xxv, 4;
xxvi, 1, 31; xxxv, 6, etc.), and the blending of these in the cover¬
ings and appurtenances of that symbolic structure probably served
not only for the sake of beauty and variety, but also to suggest
thoughts of heavenly excellence and glory. The exact colours,
tints, or shades denoted by the Hebrew words translated blue , pur¬
ple, and scarlet (rfan, and it is hardly possible now
to determine with absolute certainty,1 but probably the common
version is sufficiently correct.
The import of these several colours is to be gathered from the
associations in which they appear. Blue, as the colour Import of col_
of the heaven, reflected in the sea, would naturally sug- ours to be in¬
gest that which is heavenly, holy, and divine. Hence thSrd associS
it was appropriate that the robe of the ephod was made tion*
wholly of blue (Exod. xxviii, 31; xxxix, 22), and the breastplate
was connected with it by blue cords (ver. 28). It was also by a
blue cord or ribbon that the golden plate inscribed
“Holiness to Jehovah” was attached to the high
priest’s mitre (ver. 31). The loops of the tabernacle curtains were
of this colour (Exod. xxvi, 4), and the children of Israel were com¬
manded to place blue ribbons as badges upon the borders of their
garments (Num. xv, 37-41) as if to remind them that they were
children of the heavenly King, and were under the responsibility of
having received from him commandments and revelations. Hence,
too, it was appropriate that a blue cloth was spread over the holiest
things of the tabernacle when they were arranged for journeying
forward (Num. iv, 6, 7, 11, 12).
Purple and scarlet, so often mentioned in connexion with the
dress of kings, have very naturally been regarded as purpie and
symbolical of royalty and majesty (Judg. viii, 26; Esther scarlet.
1 See Bahr’s section on the Beschaffenheit der Farben in his chapter on Die Farben
und Bildwerke der Cultus-Statte, Symbolik, vol. i (new ed.), pp. 331-337. See also
Atwater, Sacred Tabernacle of the Hebrews, pp. 209-224, and the various biblical dic¬
tionaries and cyclopaedias, under the word Colours. Josephus’ explanation of the im¬
port of these colours (Ant., iii, 7, sec. 7) is more fanciful than authoritative or satis¬
factory.
394
PRINCIPLES OP
viii, 15; Dan. v, 7; Nah. ii, 3). Both these colours, along with
blue, appeared upon the curtains of the tabernacle (Exod. xxvi, 1)
and upon the veil that separated the holy place from the most holy
(Exod. xxvi, 31). A scarlet cloth covered the holy vessels which
were placed upon the table of showbread, and a purple cloth the
altar of burnt offerings (Num. iv, 8, 13).
White is, pre-eminently, the colour of purity and righteousness.
The Hebrew word for fine linen , or byssus (W), of
which the covering and veil and curtains of the taber¬
nacle were partly made (Exod. xxvi, 1, 31, 36) is from a root which
signifies whiteness, or to be white. It was also largely used in the
vestments of the high priest (Exod. xxviii, 5, 6, 8, 15, 39). Of
kindred signification is the Hebrew word pa, white linen, , in which
the Levitical singers were arrayed (2 Chron. v, 12). With these
white garments of the priests and Levites (comp. Psa. cxxxii, 9)
we naturally associate the raiment “ white as the light ” in which
the transfigured Christ appeared (Matt, xvii, 2; Mark ix, 3), the
apparel of the angels (Matt, xxviii, 3; John xx, 12; Acts i, 10), the
white robes of the glorified (Rev. vii, 9), and the fine linen bright
and pure, symbolic of “ the righteous acts of the saints ” (Rev. xix,
8), which is the ornamental vesture of the wife of the Lamb. Also,
as characterizing the horses of victorious warriors (Zech. i, 8; vi,
3; Rev. vi, 2; xix, 11), and the throne of judgment (Rev. xx, 11),
white may represent victorious royalty and power.
Black, as being the opposite of white, would easily become asso-
k n,iEed c^e(^ that which is evil, as mourning (Jer. xiv, 2),
pestilence, and famine (Rev. vi, 5, 6). Red is naturally
associated with war and bloodshed, as the armour of the armed
warrior is suggestive of tumult and garments rolled in blood (Isa.
ix, 5; Nah. ii, 3). But in any attempt to explain the symbolism
of a particular colour the interpreter should guard against pressing
the matter to an unwarranted extreme. The most prudent and
learned exegetes have reasonably doubted whether the different
colours of the horses seen in Zechariah’s first vision (Zech. i, 8)
should be construed as having each a definite symbolical signifi¬
cance. The several colours of the curtains of the tabernacle ap¬
pear to have been somewhat promiscuously blended together
(Exod. xxvi, 1, 31), and when thus used they served probably
for beauty and adornment rather than for separate and specific
symbolical import. Only as an interpreter is able to show from
parallel usage, analogy and inherent propriety, that a given colour
is used symbolically, will his exposition be entitled to command
assent.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
595
The same thing, substantially, may be said of the symbolical im¬
port of metals. No specific significance should be symbolical im-
sought in each separate metal or precious stone, for any portcf thepre~
,, , , . , ^ . . ._ x . ’ J cious Metals
attempt to point out such sigmficancy is apt to run into aDd jewels.
various freaks of fancy.1 But the pure gold with which the ark,
mercyseat, cherubim, altar of incense, table, and candlestick, were
either overlaid or entirely constructed (Exod. xxv), might very ap¬
propriately symbolize the light and splendour of God as he dwells
in his holy temple. The altar of burntofferings was overlaid with
brass or copper (Exod. xxvii, 2), an inferior metal. The pillars of
the court were also made of this material (Exod. xxvii, 10). The
sockets of the tabernacle boards,- and the hooks and joinings of the
pillars, were of silver (Exod. xxvi, 19; xxvii, 10). Outside of any
attempt to trace a mystic meaning in each of these metals, it may
be enough to say, in general, that gold, as being the more costly,
would appropriately be used in constructing the holiest things of
the inner sanctuary. Brass would, accordingly, be more appropri¬
ate for the things of the cuter court, and silver, intermediate be¬
tween the two, would naturally serve, to some extent, in both. The
great image of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream combined gold, silver,
brass, iron, and clay (Dan. ii, 32, 33). The power, strength, and
glory of the Babylonian monarchy, as represented in the regal
splendour of the king, Nebuchadnezzar, was represented by the
golden head (verses 37 and 38). The silver denoted an inferior
kingdom. The iron denoted, especially, the strength of the fourth
kingdom, “inasmuch as iron breaks in pieces and crushes every
thing ” (ver. 40). So the different metals used in the construction
of the tabernacle were expressive of the relative sanctity of its
different parts. The twelve precious stones in the high priest’s
breastplate, bearing the names of the twelve tribes of Israel (Exod.
xxviii, 15-21), and the twelve foundations of Jerusalem the golden
(Rev. xxi, 14), may symbolize God’s own elect as his precious jew¬
els; but an effort to tell which tribe, or which apostle, was desig¬
nated by each particular jewel, would lead the interpreter into
unauthorized speculations, more likely to bewilder and confuse than
to furnish any valuable lesson.
1 See the third chapter of Bahr’s Symbolik (vol. i, New ed.) on Das Baumaterial der
Cultus-Statte, pp. 283-330, in which not a little of valuable suggestion is presented
along with much that is too fanciful to be safely accepted. See also Atwater, Sacred
Tabernacle of the Hebrews, pp. 225-232.
396
PRINCIPLES OP
CHAPTER XX.
DREAMS AND PROPHETIC ECSTACY.
In an intelligent exposition of the prophetic portions of Holy Scrip-
Methods of di- ture, the methods and forms by which God communi-
vine revelation. cated supernatural revelations to men become questions
of fundamental importance. Dreams, night visions, and states of
spiritual ecstacy are mentioned as forms and conditions under which
men received such revelations. In Num. xii, 6, it is written: “If
there be a prophet among you, I, Jehovah, will make myself known
to him in the vision ; in the dream will I speak within him.” 1 The
open and visible manner in which Jehovah revealed himself to Mo¬
ses is then (verses 7, 8) contrasted with ordinary visions, showing
that Moses was honoured above all prophets in the intimacy of his
communion with God. The appearance (njori, form , semblance ,
ver. 8) of Jehovah which Moses was permitted to behold was some
thing far above what other holy seers beheld (comp. Deut. xxxiv,
12). This appearance “was not the essential nature of God, his
unveiled glory, for this no mortal man can see (Exod. xxxiii, 18),
but a form which manifested the invisible God to the eye of man
in a clearly discernible mode, and which was essentially different,
not only from the visional sight of God in the form of a man
(Ezek. i, 26; Dan. vii, 9, 13), but also from the appearances of God
in the outward world of the senses in the person and form of the
angel of Jehovah, and stood in the same relation to these two forms
of revelation, so far as directness and clearness were concerned, as
the sight of a person in a dream to that of the actual figure of the
person himself. God talked with Moses without figure, in the
clear distinctness of a spiritual communication, whereas to the
prophets he only revealed himself through the medium of ecstacy
or dream.”2
The dream is noticeably prominent among the earlier forms of
The Dreams of receiving divine revelations, but becomes less frequent
Scripture. at a later period. The most remarkable instances of
dreams recorded in the Scriptures are those of Abimelech (Gen. xx,
M3, within him , not unto him , as the common version. “In him,” says Keil,“ in¬
asmuch as a revelation in a dream fell within the inner sphere of the soul life.” —
Commentary on the Pentateuch, in loco. Compare Job xxxiii, 14-17.
2 Keil’s Commentary on Num. xii, 8.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
397
3 7), Jacob at Bethel (xxviii, 12), Laban in Mt. Gilead (xxxi, 24),
Joseph respecting the sheaves and the luminaries (xxxvii, 5-10), the
butler and the baker (xl, 5-19), Pharaoh (xli, 1-32), the Midianite
(Judg. vii, 13-15), Solomon (1 Kings iii, 5; ix, 2), Nebuchadnezzar
(Dan. ii and iv), Daniel (Dan. vii, 1), Joseph (Matt, i, 20; ii, 13, 19),
and the Magi from the East (Matt, ii, 12). The “night vision”
appears to have been of essentially the same nature as the dream
(comp. Dan. ii, 19; vii, 1; Acts xvi, 9; xviii, 9; xxvii, 23).
It is manifest that in man’s interior nature there exist powers
and latent possibilities which only extraordinary occa-
• • * j Dreams evince
sions or peculiar conditions serve to display. And these latent powers
facts it becomes the interpreter to note. These latent of the souL
powers are occasionally seen in cases of disordered mental action
and insanity. The phenomena of somnambulism and clairvoyance
also exhibit the same. And ordinary dreams, considered as abnor¬
mal operations of the perceptive faculties uncontrolled by the judg¬
ment and the will, are often of a striking and impressive character.
The dreams of Joseph, of the butler and baker, and of the Midian¬
ite, are not represented as divine or supernatural revelations. In¬
numerable instances equally striking have occurred to other men.
But at the same time, all such impressive dreams bring out into
partial manifestation latent potencies of the human soul which may
well have served in the communication of divine revelations to
men. “The deep of man’s internal nature,” observes Delitzsch,
“ into which in sleep he sinks back, conceals far more than is mani¬
fest to himself. It has been a fundamental error of most psycholo¬
gists hitherto to make the soul extend only so far as its conscious¬
ness extends; it embraces, as is now always acknowledged, a far
greater abundance of powers and relations than can commonly ap¬
pear in its consciousness. To this abundance pertains, moreover,
the faculty of foreboding, that leads and warns a man without con¬
scious motive, and anticipates the future — a faculty which, in the
state of sleep, wherein the outer senses are fettered, is ‘frequently
unbound, and looms in the remoteness of the future.” 1
The profound and far-reaching significance of some prophetic
dreams may be seen in that of Jacob at Bethel (Gen. Jacob’s dream
xxviii, 10-22). This son of Isaac was guilty of grave atBethel-
wrongs, but in his quiet and thoughful soul there was a hiding of
power, a susceptibility for divine things, a spiritual insight and
longing that made him a fitter person than Esau to lead in the de¬
velopment of the chosen nation. He appears to have passed the
1 Biblical Psychology, English translation (Edinb., 1879), p. 330. Sec his whole
section on Sleeping, Waking, and Dreaming, from which the above extract is taken.
398
PRINCIPLES OF
night in the open field near the ancient town of Luz (ver. 19).
Before darkness covered him he, doubtless, like Abraham in that
same place long before (Gen. xiii, 14), looked northward, and
southward, and eastward, and westward, and saw afar the hills
and mountains towering up like a stairway into heaven, and this
view may have been, in part, a psychological preparation for his
dream. For, falling asleep, he beheld a ladder or stairway (D?D),
perhaps a gigantic staircase composed of piles of mountains placed
one upon another so as to look like a wondrous highway of passage
to the skies. The main points of his dream fall under four beholds,
three of vision — “behold, a ladder,” “behold, angels of God,” “be¬
hold, Jehovah ” (verses 12, 13) — and one of promise — “behold, I
am with thee” (ver. 15). These words imply an intense impres¬
siveness in the whole revelation. It was a night vision by means of
which the great future of Jacob and his seed was set forth in sym¬
bol and in promise. For Jacob at the bottom of the ladder, Jeho¬
vah at the top, and angels ascending and descending, form alto¬
gether a complex symbol full of profound suggestions. It indicated
at least four things : ( 1 ) There is a way opened between earth and
heaven by which spirits may ascend to God. (2) The ministry
of angels. (3) The mystery of the incarnation: for the ladder
was a symbol of the Son of man, the way (rj odog, John xiv, 4, 6;
Heb. ix, 8) into the holiest heaven, the Mediator upon whom, as the
sole ground and basis of all possibility of grace, the angels of God
ascend and descend to minister to the heirs of salvation (John i, 52).
In that mystery of grace Jehovah himself reaches down as from
the top of the ladder, and lays hold upon this son of Abraham and
all his spiritual seed, and lifts them up to heaven. (4) The prom¬
ise, in connexion with the vision (verses 13-15), emphasized the
wonderful providence of God, who stood (ver. 13) gazing down
upon this lonely, helpless man, and making gracious provision for
him and his posterity.
We need not assume that Jacob understood the far-reaching im¬
port of that dream, but it led him to make a holy vow, and, doubt¬
less, it was often afterward the subject of his quiet meditations.
It could not fail to impress him with the conviction that he was
a special object of Jehovah’s care, and of the ministry of angels.
It is noticeable that the record of the prophetic dreams of the
interpretation heathen, as, for example, those of Pharaoh and his but-
of dreams. ]er an(j Rakerj 0f the Midianite, and of Nebuchadnezzar,
are accompanied by an ample explanation. We observe also that
the dreams of Joseph and of Pharaoh were double, or repeated under
different forms. Joseph’s first dream was a vision of sheaves in
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
399
the harvest held; his second, of the sun, moon, and eleven stars
(Gen. xxxvii, 5-11). They both conveyed the same prognostica¬
tion, and were so far understood by his brethren and his father as
to excite the envy of the former and draw the serious attention of
the latter. Joseph explains the two dreams of Pharaoh as one
(Gen. xli, 25), and declared that the repetition of the „
\ ’/ i. i i i Repetition of
dream to Pharaoh twice was because the word was dreams and
established from God, and God was hastening to ac- vlslons-
complish it (ver. 32). Here is a hint for the interpretation of other
dreams and visions. Daniel’s dream-vision of the four beasts out
of the sea (Dan. vii) is, in substance, a repetition of Nebuchadnez¬
zar’s dream of the great image, and the visions of the eighth and
eleventh chapters, go partly over the same ground again. God
thus repeats his revelations under various forms, and thereby de¬
notes their certainty as the determinate purposes of his will. Many
visions of the Apocalypse are also, apparently, symbols of the same
events, or else move so largely over the same held as to warrant
the belief that they, too, are repetitions, under different forms, of
things that were shortly to come to pass, and the certainty of
which was fixed in the purposes of God.
But dreams, we observed, were rather the earlier and lower
forms of divine revelation. A higher form was that _ . ..
® # , Prophetic ec-
of prophetic ecstasy, in which the spirit of the seer stasy or vision-
became possessed of the Spirit of God, and, while yet altrance’
retaining its human consciousness, and susceptible of human emo¬
tion, was rapt away into visions of the Almighty and made cogni¬
zant of words and things which no mortal could naturally per¬
ceive. In 2 Sam. vii, 4-17, we have the record of “a word of
Jehovah ” that came to Nathan in a night vision (see ver. 1 7) and
was communicated to David. It contained the prophecy and prom¬
ise that his kingdom and throne should be established forever. It
was for David an impressive oracle, and he “went and sat down
before Jehovah” (ver. 18), and wondered and worshipped. Such
wonder and worship were probably, at that or some other time, a
means of inducing the psychological condition and spiritual ecstasy
in which the second psalm was composed. David becomes a seer
and prophet. “The Spirit of Jehovah spoke within him, and his
word was upon his tongue” (2 Sam. xxiii, 2). He is lifted into vis¬
ional ecstasy, in which the substance of Nathan’s prophecy takes a
new and higher form, transcending all earthly royalty and power.
He sees Jehovah enthroning his Anointed (irp$p, his Messiah ) upon
Zion, the mountain of his holiness (Psa. ii, 2, 6). The nations rage
against him, and struggle to cast off his authority, but they are
400
PRINCIPLES OF
utterly discomfited by him who “ sitteth in the heavens,” and to
whom the nations are given for an inheritance. Thus, the second
psalm is seen to be no mere historical ode, composed upon the regal
inauguration of David or Solomon, or any other earthly prince.
A greater than either David or Solomon arose in the psalmist’s
vision. For he is clearly- styled the Messiah, the Son of Jehovah;
the kings and judges of the earth are counselled to kiss him, that
they may not perish, and all who put their trust in him are
pronounced blessed. And it is only as the interpreter attains a
vivid apprehension of the power of such ecstasy that he can
properly perceive or explain the import of any Messianic prophecy.
Another illustration of the prophetical ecstasy may be seen in
Ezekiel’s Rap- Ezekiel’s statements. At the beginning of his prophe-
ture- cies he uses four different expressions to indicate the
form and power in which he received revelations (Ezek. i, 1, 3).
The heavens were opened, visions of God were seen, the word of
Jehovah came with great force,1 and the hand of Jehovah was laid
upon him. Allowing for whatever of the poetical element these
expressions contain, it remains evident that the prophet experienced
a mighty interworking of human and superhuman powers. The
visions of God caused him to fall upon his face (ver. 28), and, anon,
the Spirit lifted him up upon his feet (chap, ii, 1, 2). At another
time the form of a hand reached forth and took him by a lock of
his head, and transported him in the visions of God to Jerusalem
(Ezek. viii, 3). From this it would appear that for a mortal man
to receive consciously a revelation from the Infinite Spirit two
things are essential. The human spirit must become divinely ex¬
alted, or rapt away from its ordinary life and operations, and the
Divine Spirit must so take possession of its energies, and quicken
them into supersensual perception, that they become temporary
organs of the Infinite. The whole process is manifestly a divine-
human, or theandric operation. And yet, through it all, the human
spirit retains its normal consciousness and knows the vision is
divine.
The same things appear also in the visions of Daniel. He be-
other examples holds the prophetic symbols, he hears the words of the
Of Ecstasy. angel interpreter Gabriel, and he too falls upon his
face, overwhelmed with the deep sleep that stupifies the active
powers of the mind, and puts him in full possession of the reveal¬
ing angel (Dan. viii, 17, 18). The touch of the angel lifts him into
the ecstasy in which he sees and hears the heavenly word. This
1 Heb. ITH ITH, coming came , the Hebrew idiomatic way of giving emphasis to a
thought by repeating the verb, and using its absolute infinitive form.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
401
peculiar form of prophetic ecstasy appears to have differed from
the “ dream and visions of his head upon his bed” (Dan. vii, 1), in
that this latter seized him during the slumbers of the night, where¬
as the other came upon him during his waking consciousness, and
probably while in the act of prayer (comp. chap, ix, 21). The ecs¬
tasy which came upon Peter on the housetop came in connexion
with his praying and a sense of great hunger (Acts x, 9, 10). The
act of prayer was a spiritual preparation, and the hunger fur¬
nished a physical and psychical condition, by means of which the
form of the vision and the command to slay and eat became the
more impressive. Paul’s similar ecstasy in the temple at Jerusa¬
lem was preceded by prayer (Acts xxii, 17), and his experience of
these “ visions and revelations of God,” narrated in 2 Cor. xii, 1-4,
was in such a transcendent rapture of soul that he knew not
whether he were in the body or out of the body. That is, he knew
not whether his whole person lind been rapt away in visions of God,
like Ezekiel (viii, 3), or whether merely the spirit had been elevated
into visional ecstasy. His consciousness in this matter seems to
have been overcome by the excessive greatness (vn eppoXrj) of the
revelations (ver. 7). And probably had Ezekiel been called upon
to say whether his rapture to Jerusalem were in the body or out of
the body, he would have answered as uncertainly as Paul.
The prophetic ecstasy, of which the above are notable examples,
was evidently a spiritual sight seeing,1 a supernatural illumination,
in which the natural eye was either closed (comp. Num. xxiv, 3, 4)
or suspended from its ordinary functions, and the inner senses
vividly grasped the scene that was presented, or the divine word
which was revealed. We need not refine so far as, with Delitzsch,
to classify this divine ecstasy into three forms, as mystic, prophetic,
and charismatic. All ecstasy is mystic, and charismatic ecstasy
may have been prophetic; but we may still, with him, define pro¬
phetic ecstasy as consisting essentially in this, that the human spirit
is seized and compassed by the Divine Spirit, which searcheth all
things, even the deep things of God, and seized with such uplifting
energy that, being averted from its ordinary conditions of limita¬
tion in the body, it becomes altogether a seeing eye, a hearing ear,
a perceiving sense, that takes most vivid cognizance of things in
time or eternity, according as they are presented by the power and
wisdom of God.2
The grandest form of prophetic ecstasy is that in which the vision
1 For this reason the Old Testament prophet is often called the seer (n&4"l aud nth).
He was a beholder of visions from the Almighty.
2 Comp. Delitzsch, Biblical Psychology, p. 421.
26
402
PRINCIPLES OF
(xiH) and word (ill) of Jehovah appear to have become so absorbed
Tiie prophet by the prophet’s heaven-lit soul that he himself person-
lost in God. ates the Holy One, and speaks in Jehovah’s name. So
we understand the later chapters of Isaiah, where the person of the
prophet sinks comparatively out of sight, and Jehovah announces
himself as the speaker. So, too, Zechariah announces the word of
Jehovah touching “the flock of slaughter” Zech. xi, 4), but as he
proceeds with the divine oracle, he seems to lose the consciousness
of his own distinct personality, and to speak in the name and per¬
son of his Lord (vers. 10-14). 1
A later and mysterious manifestation of spiritual ecstasy appears
Giossoiaiy or *n ^ew Testament glossolaly, or gift of speaking
speaking with with tongues. Among the signs to follow those who
should believe through the apostles’ preaching, a speak¬
ing with “new2 tongues” was specified (Mark xvi, 17) ; and the dis¬
ciples were commanded by Jesus to tarry in the city of Jerusalem
until they were clothed with power from on high (Luke xxiv, 49).
On the day of Pentecost “ there came suddenly from heaven a sound
as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they
were sitting, and there appeared unto them self -distributing (&ap£-
Qi^ofisvai) tongues as of fire, and it sat upon each one of them, and
they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they began to speak
with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance” (Acts ii, 3, 4).
A like display was manifest at the conversion of Cornelius (Acts
x, 46), and when, after their baptism, Paul laid his hands upon the
twelve disciples of John the Baptist whom he found at Ephesus
(Acts xix, 6). But the most extensive treatment of the subject is
found in 1 Cor. xiv, with which are to be compared also the inci¬
dental references in chaps, xii, 10, 28, and xiii, 1. From this Cor¬
inthian epistle it appears, (1) that it was a supernatural gift, a
divine that marked with a measure of novelty the first
outgoings of the Gospel of Christ. (2) There were different kinds
(yewy, sorts , classes , 1 Cor. xii, 10) of tongues. (3) The speaking
with tongues was a speaking unto God rather than man (xiv, 2) and
an utterance of mysteries, which edified the subjective spirit of the
1 “ The prophet himself sometimes speaks from God,” observes Delitzsch, “ some¬
times God himself speaks from the prophet ; sometimes the divine Ego asserts itself
with a supreme power that absorbs all other, sometimes the human in the entire ful¬
ness of sanctified humanity; but in both cases it is the personality of the prophet, in
the totality of its pneumatico-psychical powers, which becomes the more active or pas¬
sive organ of God.” — Biblical Psychology, p. 421.
2 The word ncuvaic, new , is omitted by several of the chief MS. authorities for the
close of Mark’s Gospel. In Westcott and Hort’s edition of the Greek Testament the
word is placed in the margin, but omitted from the text.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
403
speaker (ver. 4), but was unintelligible to the common understand¬
ing ( vovg , ver. 14). (4) The speaking with tongues took the form
of worship, and manifested itself in prayer, singing, and thanks¬
giving (vers. 14-16). (5) Though edifying to the speaker, it did
not tend to edify the Church unless one gifted with the interpreta¬
tion of tongues, either the speaker himself or another, explained
what was uttered. (6) It was a sign to the unbeliever, accompanied
probably with such evidences of the supernatural as, at first, to im¬
press the hearer with a sense of awe, but calculated on the whole
to lead such as had no sympathy with the Gospel to say that these
speakers were either mad or filled with wine (ver. 23 ; comp. Acts
ii, 13). (7) It was a gift for which one might thank God (ver. 18),
and not to be forbidden in the Church (ver. 39), but was to be cov¬
eted less than other charisms, and, especially, less than the gift of
prophesying unto the edifying of the Church (vers. 1, 5, 19); for
“greater is he who prophesies than he who speaks with tongues,
except he interpret.”
Such is substantially what Paul says of this remarkable gift. On
the day of Pentecost it took the form of appropriating The Pentecost
the various dialects of the hearers, so as to fill them all ai Giossoiaiy
with amazement and wonder (Acts ii, 5-12). This, how- symbollcaL
ever, appears to have been an exceptional manifestation, perhaps a
miraculous exhibition, for a symbolic purpose, of all the kinds of
tongues (comp. 1 Cor. xii, 10), which on other occasions were separ¬
ate and individually distinct. Certainly the speaking with tongues
in the Corinthian church was accompanied by no such effect upon
the hearers as on the day of Pentecost. The once prevalent notion
that this giossoiaiy was a supernatural gift, by which the first
preachers of the Gospel were enabled to proclaim the word of life
in the various languages of foreign nations, has little in its favour.
There is no intimation, outside of the miracle of Pentecost, that
this gift ever served such a purpose. And that miracle, whatever
its real nature, seems rather like a symbolical sign, signifying that
the confusion of tongues, which came as a curse at Babel, should be
counteracted and abolished by the Gospel of the new life, then
just breaking in heavenly charismatic power upon the world.1
That evangelic word was destined to become potent in all the lan
guages of men, and by the living voice of preachers, and through
the written volume, utter its heavenly messages to the nations, un¬
til all should know the Lord.
1 Poena linguarum dispersit homines (Gen. xi); donnm linguarum disperses in unam
populum collegit (The punishment of tongues scattered men abroad; the gift of tongues
gathered the dispersed into one people). — Grotius, Annotations on Acts, ii, 3.
404
PRINCIPLES OF
The exact nature of the New Testament glossolaly it is probably
now impossible to define. It may have been, in some instances, a
soul-ecstasy, in which men worshipped strangely, and lost control of
a part of their faculties. Something like this was experienced by
Glossolaly a ^atil w^en me^ band prophets (l Sam. x, 9-12),
mysterious and when, at a later time, he prophesied before Samuel,
power. an(i fen down under the power of the Spirit of God
(1 Sam. xix, 23, 24). At other times it may have been a condition
of receiving visions and revelations of God, as when Paul was
caught up to paradise, u and heard unspeakable words, which it is
not lawful for a man to utter ” (2 Cor. xii, 4). Possibly in that heav¬
enly rapture this apostle received his conception of “ the tongues of
the angels” (1 Cor. xiii, l).1 But whatever its real nature, it was
essentially an ecstatic speaking of mysteries (1 Cor. xiv, 2), involv¬
ing such a divine communion with God as lifted the spirit of the
rapt believer into the realm of the unseen and eternal, and pro¬
duced in him an awe-inspiring sense of supernatural exaltation.2
1 According to Stanley, the gift of tongues “ was a trance or ecstasy, which, in mo¬
ments of great religious fervour, especially at the moment of conversion, seized the
early believers ; and this fervour vented itself in expressions of thanksgiving, in frag¬
ments of psalmody or hymnody and prayer, which to the speaker himself conveyed an
irresistible sense of communion with God, and to the bystander an impression of
some extraordinary manifestation of power, but not necessarily any instruction or
teaching, and sometimes even having the appearance of wild excitement, like that of
madness or intoxication. It was the most emphatic sign to each individual believer
that a power mightier than his own was come into the world ; and in those who, like
the Apostle Paul, possessed this gift in a high degree, ‘ speaking with tongues more
than they all,’ it would, when combined with the other more remarkable gifts which
he possessed, form a fitting mood for the reception of ‘ God’s secrets ’ (fivcrr/pia), and
of ‘ unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for man to utter,’ ‘ being caught into
the third heaven,’ and into ‘ Paradise.’ And thus the nearest written example of
this gift is that exhibited in the abrupt style and the strange visions of the Apoca¬
lypse, in which, almost in the words of St. Paul, the prophet is described as being ‘ in
the Spirit on the Lord’s day,’ and ‘ hearing a voice as of a trumpet,’ and seeing ‘ a
door open in heaven,’ and ‘ a throne set in heaven,’ and ‘ the New Jerusalem,’ ‘ the
river of life,’ and ‘ the tree of life.’ ” — Epistles of St. Paul to the Corinthians, pp.
246, 247. London, 1876.
2 See Rossteuscher, Gabe der Sprachen (Marb., 1850); Hilgenfeld, Glossolalie in der
alten Kirche (Lpz., 1850); Neander, Planting and Training of the Christian Church
(New ed., New York, 1864), Book I, chap, i; Schaff, Hist, of the Christian Church
(New ed., New York, 1882), vol. i, pp. 230-242 ; Stanley, St. Paul’s Epistles to the
Corinthians, Introductory Dissertation to chap, xiv ; Kling on the Corinthians (in
Lange’s Biblework), pp. 282-301, Amer. ed., translated and enlarged by Dr. Poor;
Keim, article Zungenreden, in Herzog’s Rcal-Encyclopadie (vol. xviii, ed. Gotha,
1864) ; Plumptre’s article on the Gift of Tongues in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
405
CHAPTER XXL
PROPHECY AND ITS INTERPRETATION.
A thorough interpretation of tlie prophetic portions of the holy
Scripture is largely dependent upon a mastery of the principles
and laws of figurative language, and of types and symbols. It re¬
quires also some acquaintance with the nature of vision-seeing ec-
stacy and dreams. The foregoing chapters have, therefore, been a
necessary preparation for an intelligent study of those more ab¬
struse writings, which have continuously exercised the most gifted
minds of the Church, and yet have been most variously interpreted.
Inspired oracles, forecasting the future, wrought out with every
variety of figurative speech, and often embodied in Magnitude and
type and symbol, are interspersed throughout the entire scope of scrip-
Scriptures, and constitute a uniting bond between the ture Pr°Phe°y-
Old Testament and the New. The first great prophecy was uttered
in Paradise, where man originally sinned and first felt the need of
a Redeemer. It was repeated in many forms and portions as years
and centuries passed. The Christ of God, the mighty Prophet,
Priest, and King, was its loftiest theme; but it also dealt so copi¬
ously with all man’s relations to God and to the world, with human
hopes and fears, with civil governments and national responsibili¬
ties, with divine laws and purposes, that its written records are a
textbook of divine counsel for all time.1
Prophesying, according to the Scriptures, is not primarily a pre¬
diction of future events. The Hebrew word for prophet,
1 The subjects of prophecy varied. Whilst it was all directed to one general de¬
sign, in the evidence and support of religion, there was a diversity in the adminis¬
tration of the Spirit in respect of that design. In Paradise, it gave the first hope of
a Redeemer. After the deluge, it established the peace of the natural world. In
Abraham it founded the double covenant of Canaan and the Gospel. In the age of
the law, it spoke of the second prophet, and foreshadowed, in types, the Christian
doctrine, but foretold most largely the future fate of the selected people, who were
placed under that preparatory dispensation. In the time of David it revealed the
Gospel kingdom, with the promise of the temporal. In the days of the later prophets
it presignified the changes of the Mosaic covenant, embraced the history of the chief
pagan kingdoms, and completed the annunciation of the Messiah and his work of
redemption. After the captivity, it gave a last and more urgent information of the
approaching advent of the Gospel. — Davison, Discourses on Prophecy, pp. 355, 356.
Oxford, 1834.
406
PRINCIPLES OF
signifies one who speaks under the pressure of a divine fervour,1
prophecy not an^ Prophet is especially to be regarded as one who
merely predic- bears a divine message, and acts as the spokesman of
ance of God’s the Almighty. Aaron was divinely appointed as the
tmth. spokesman of Moses, to repeat God’s word from his
mouth (Exod. iv, 16), and thereby was Moses made as God to
Pharaoh, and Aaron served as his prophet Exod. vii, 1).
Hence the prophet is the announcer of a divine message, and^tbat
message may refer to the past, the present, or the future. It may
be a revelation, a warning, a rebuke, an exhortation, a promise, or
a prediction. The bearer of such a message is appropriately called
a “man of God” (1 Kings xiii, 1 ; 2 Kings iv, 7, 9), and a “man of
the Spirit ” (Hos. ix, 7). It is important also to observe that a very
large proportion of the Old Testament prophetical books consists
of warning, expostulation, and rebuke ; and there are intimations
of many unwritten prophecies of this character. “The prophets,”
says Fairbairn, “were in a peculiar sense the spiritual watchmen of
Judah and Israel, the representatives of divine truth and holiness,
whose part it was to keep a wakeful and jealous eye upon the man¬
ners of the times, to detect and reprove the symptoms of defection
which appeared, and by every means in their power foster and en¬
courage the spirit of real godliness. And such pre-eminently was
Elijah, who is therefore taken in the Scripture as the type of the
whole prophetical order in the earlier stages of its development; a
man of heroic energy of action rather than of prolific thought and
elevating discourse. The words he spoke were few, but they were
words spoken as from the secret place of thunder, and seemed more
like decrees issuing from the presence of the Eternal than the utter¬
ances of one of like passions with those whom he addressed.”2
1 Gesenius derives the word from the root fcOJ, equivalent to JDJ, to boil forth ; to
gush out ; to flow, as a fountain. Hence the idea of one upon whom the vision-seeing
ecstacy falls ; or of one who is borne along and carried aloft by a supernatural in¬
spiration (vto 7 rvevgaroQ ayiov (pepogevoi-, 2 Pet. i, 21). “ Hebrew prophecy, like the
Hebrew people, stands without parallel in the history of the world. Other nations
have had their oracles, diviners, augurs, soothsayers, necromancers. The Hebrews
alone have possessed prophets and a prophetic litei'ature. It is useless, therefore, to
go to the manticism of the heathen to get light as to the nature of Hebrew prophecy.
To follow the rabbis of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries is just as vain. The
only reliable sources of information on the subject are the Scriptures of the Old and
New Testaments.”— M’Call, in Aids to Faith, p. 97. On the distinction between the
prophet (N'nj) and the seer (ntjh, and nth) see Smith, Prophecy a Preparation for
Christ (Bampton Lectures), pp. 68-86. Boston, 1870.
2 Prophecy, viewed in respect to its Distinctive Nature, Special Functions, and
Proper Interpretation, p. 37. N. Y., 1866. Philippi (Commentary on Romans xii, 6)
observes that “ the New Testament idea of the prophetic office is essentially identical
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
407
It is principally those portions of the prophetic Scriptures which
forecast the future that call for special hermeneutics, only prophecies
Being exceptional in their character, they demand of„the fut,ire
exceptional study and care in interpretation. Other hermeneutics,
prophecies, consisting mainly of rebuke, expostulation, or warning,
are so readily apprehended by the common mind as to need no
extended explanation. Avoiding, on the one side, the extreme lit¬
eralistic error that the biblical predictions are “ history written be¬
forehand,” and on the other, the rationalistic notions that they are
either happy guesses of the probable outcome of impending events,
. or else a peculiar portraiture of them after they had taken place
(vaticinium post eventum ), we accept these predictions as divine
oracles of events that were subsequently to come to pass, but so
expressed in figure and symbol as to demand great care on the part
of him who would understand and interpret them. When we deny
that prophecy is a history of events before they come to pass, we
mean to say that prophecy is in no proper sense history.
tt« . . ,, , * , i r i t History and pre-
Liistory is the record ot what has already occurred; diction should
prediction is a foretelling of what is to come, and near- notbeconfused*
ly always in some form of statement or revelation that takes it out¬
side of the line of literal narrative. There are cases, indeed, where
the prediction is a specific declaration of incidents of the simplest
character; as when Samuel foretold to Saul the particular events
that would befall him on his return to Gibeah (1 Sam. x, 3-6) ; but
it is misleading to call even such predictions a history of future
events, for it is a confusion of the proper usage of words. There
is an element of mystery about all predictions, and those of greatest
moment in the Scriptures are clothed in a symbolic drapery.1
with that of the Old Testament. Prophets are men who, inspired by the Spirit of
God, and impelled to theopneustic discourse, partly remove the veil from the future
(Rev. i, 3 ; xxii, 7, 10 ; John xi, 51 ; Acts xi, 27, 28 ; xxi, 10, 11. Comp. 1 Pet. i, 10) —
partly make known concealed facts of the present, either in discovering the secret
counsel and will of God (Luke i, 67 ; Acts xiii, 1 ; Eph. iii, 6), or in disclosing the hid¬
den thoughts of man (1 Cor. xiv, 24, 25), and dragging into light his unknown deeds
(Matt, xxvi, 68; Mark xiv, 65; Luke xxii, 64; John iv, 19) — partly dispense to their
hearers instruction, comfort, exhortation, in animated, powerfully impassioned lan¬
guage, going far beyond the wonted limits of the capacity for teaching, which, although
spiritual, still confines itself within the forms of reason (Matt, vii, 28, 29; Luke
xxiv, 19; John vii, 40; Acts xv, 32; 1 Cor. xiv, 3, 4, 31).”
1 Fairbairn has an able chapter on “ The place of prophecy in history, and the
organic connexion of the one with the other ” (Prophecy, pp. 33-53). He traces the
beginning and growth of prophecy in the sacred history, showing how “it appears
somewhat like a river, small in its beginnings, and though still proceeding, yet often
losing itself for ages under ground, then bursting forth anew with increased volume,
and at last rising into a swollen stream — greatest by far when it has come within
408
PRINCIPLES OF
In order to a proper interpretation of prophecy three things are
Fundamental to particularly studied, (1) the organic relations and
principles. inter-dependence of the principal predictions on record ;
(2) the usage and import of figures and symbols; and (3) analysis
and comparison of similar prophecies, especially such as have been
divinely interpreted, and such as have been clearly fulfilled.
1. Organic Relations of Prophecy.
In studying the general structure and organic relations of the
great prophecies, it will be seen that they are first presented in
broad and bold outline, and subsequently expanded in their minor
details. Thus the first great prophecy on record (Gen. iii, 15) is a
brief but far-reaching announcement of the long conflict between
good and evil, as these opposing principles, with all their forces,
connect themselves with the Promised Seed of the woman on the
Progressive one side, and the old serpent, the devil, on the other.
M^e s s i^n ic ^ may sa^ ^at a^ other prophecies of the Christ
prophecy. and the kingdom of God are comprehended in the
protevangelium as in a germ. From this point onward through the
Scripture revelations the successive prophecies sustain a noticeably
progressive character. Varying ideas of the Promised Seed appear
in the prophecy of Noah (Gen. ix, 26, 27), and the repeated prom¬
ises to Abraham (Gen. xii, 3; xvii, 2-8; xviii, 18). These Mes¬
sianic predictions became more definite as they were repeatedly
confirmed to Isaac, to Jacob, to Judah, and to the house of David.
They constitute the noblest psalms and the grandest portions of
the Greater and the Lesser Prophets. Taken separately, these dif¬
ferent predictions are of a fragmentary character; each prophet
prospect of its termination” (p. 33). He observes further (p. 43): “Prophecy, there¬
fore, being from the very first inseparably linked with the plan of grace unfolded in
Scripture, is, at the same time, the necessary concomitant of sacred history. The two
mutually act and react on each other. Prophecy gives birth to the history ; the his¬
tory, in turn, as it moves onward to its destined completion, at once fulfils prophecies
already given, and calls forth further revelations. And so far from possessing the
character of an excrescence, or existing merely as an anomaly in the procedure of God
toward men, prophecy cannot even be rightly understood unless viewed in the rela¬
tion to the order of the divine dispensations, and its actual place in history. . . .
However closely related the two are to each other, they still have their own distinc¬
tive characteristics and, through these, their respective ends to serve. History is the
occasion of prophecy, but not its measure ; for prophecy rises above history, borne
aloft by wings which carry it far above the present, and which it derives, not from
the past occurrences of which history takes cognizance, but from Him to whom the
future and the past are alike known. It is the communication of so much of his own
supernatural light as he sees fit to let down upon the dark movements of history, to
show whither they are conducting.”
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
409
knew or caught glimpses of the Messianic future only in part, and
he prophesied in part (1 Cor. xiii, 9) ; hut when the Christ himself
appeared, and fulfilled the prophecies, then all these fragmentary
parts were seen to form a glorious harmony.1
The oracle of Balaam touching Moab, Edom, Amalek, the Ken-
ites, Asshur, and the power from the side of Chittim „ .
_ T . .r . Repetitions of
(Num. xxiv, 17-24), is the prophetic germ of many oracles against
later oracles against these and similar enemies of the heathen powers,
chosen people. Amos long after takes up the prophetic word, and
speaks more fully against Damascus, Gaza, Tyre, Edom, Ammon,
and Moab, and does not except even Judah and Israel (Amos i
and ii). Compare also Isaiah’s burden-prophecies (K&B) against
Babylon, Moab, Damascus, Ethiopia, Egypt, Media, Edom, Arabia,
and Tyre (Isa. xiii-xxiii), in which we observe the minatory sen¬
tence uttered against these heathen powers in great detail. And
as Balaam noticed the affliction of Eber, (i. e., Israel) in connexion
with his last-named hostile power from Chittim (Num. xxiv, 24), so
Isaiah introduces the “burden of the valley of vision” (Isa. xxii, 1)
just before announcing the overthrow of Tyre (Isa. xxiii, 1). Jer¬
emiah devotes chapters xlvi to li to the announcement of judg¬
ments upon Egypt, Philistia, Moab, Ammon, Edom, Damascus,
Kedar, Hazor, Elam, and Babylon, and amid these utterances of
coming wrath are intimations of Israel’s dispersion and sorrow
(comp. chap. 1, 17-20, 33; li, 5, 6, 45). Compare also Ezekiel’s
seven oracles against Ammon, Moab, Edom, Philistia, Tyre, Sidon,
and Egypt (Ezek. xxv to xxxii).
In noticeable analogy with the repetition of similar prophecies by
different prophets, is the repetition of the same prophecy by one
and the same prophet.
The vision of the four great beasts, in Dan. vii, is essentially a
repetition of the vision of the great image in chapter ii. Daniel’s two
The same four great world-powers are denoted in these fchaps^andvS)
prophecies; but, as has often been observed, the imagery compared,
is varied according to the relative standpoint of the king and the
prophet. “As presented to the view of Nebuchadnezzar, the
worldly power was seen only in its external aspect, under the form
of a colossal image possessing the likeness of a man, and in its more
1 On the Messianic prophecies see J. Pye Smith, Scripture Testimony to the Messiah,
3 vols. (Lend., 1829); Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament, 4 vols. (Eng.
trans. by Meyer, Edinb., 1863); Tholuck" Die Propheten und ihre Weissagungen, pp.
146-189 (Gotha, 1860); Leathes, Witness of the Old Testament to Christ (Boyle Lec¬
tures for 1868); Riehm, Messianic Prophecy (Eng. trans., Edinb., 1876); Gloag, The
Messianic Prophecies, pp. 98-208 (Baird Lecture, Edinb., 1879).
410
PRINCIPLES OF
conspicuous parts composed of the shining and precious metals;
while the divine kingdom appeared in the meaner aspect of a stone,
without ornament or beauty, with nothing, indeed, to distinguish it
but its resistless energy and perpetual duration. Daniel’s visions,
on the other hand, direct the eye into the interior of things, strip
the earthly kingdoms of their false glory by exhibiting them under
the aspects of wild beasts and nameless monsters (such as are every¬
where to be seen in the grotesque sculptures and painted entabla¬
tures of Babylon), and reserve the human form, in conformity with
its divine, original, and true idea, to stand as the representative of
the kingdom of God, which is composed of the saints of the Most
High, and holds the truth that is destined to prevail over all error
and ungodliness of men.” 1
So, again, the impressive vision of the ram and the he-goat, in
The little horn Dan. viii, is but a repetition from another standpoint
andviii ^the (Shushan, in Elam, a chief seat of the Medo-Persian
same power monarchy) of the previous vision of the third and fourth
prophetic^as- leasts. Differences in detail appear according to the
pects. analogy of all such repeated prophecies, but these minor
differences should not be allowed to obscure and obliterate the
great fundamental analogies. Few expositors of any note have
doubted that the little horn of Dan. viii, 9, denoted Antiochus
Epiphanes, the bitter persecutor of the Jews, who “spoiled the
temple, and put a stop to the constant practice of offering a daily
sacrifice of expiation for three years and six months.” 2 The first
and most natural presumption is that the little horn of chap, vii, 8,
denotes the same impious and violent persecutor. The fact that
one prophecy delineates the impiety and violence of this enemy
more fully than another is no evidence that two different persons
are intended. Otherwise the still fuller delineation of this mon¬
ster of iniquity, given in chap, xi, must on this sole ground be re¬
ferred to yet another person. The statements that the little horn
of chap, vii, 8 came up between the ten horns, and rooted up three
of them, and that of chap, viii, 9 came out from one of the four
horns of the he-goat, can have no force in disproving the identity
of the little horns in both passages unless it is assumed that the four
horns of chap, viii, 8 are identical with the ten horns of chap, vii, 7
— an assumption which no one will allow. These are but the minor
variations called for by the different positions occupied by the
prophet in the different visions. If we understand the ten horns
of chap, vii, 7 as a round number denoting the kings more fully
1 Fairbairn on Prophecy, p. 122.
3 Josephus, Wars, i, 1. Comp. Ant., xii, 5, 4, and 1 Maccabees i.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
411
described in chap, xi, and the four conspicuous horns of chap, viii, 8
as the four notable successors of Alexander, the harmony of the
two visions will be readily apparent. From one point of view the
£i eat horn (Alexander) was succeeded by ten horns, and also a lit¬
tle horn moie notable in some respects than any of the ten; from
another standpoint the great horn was seen to be followed by
foui notable hoi ns (the famous Diadochoi), from the stump of
one of which (Seleucus) came forth Antiochus Epiphanes. Only
a failure to note the repetition of prophecies under various forms,
and from different points of view, occasions the trouble which
some have found in identifying prophecies of essentially the same
great events.1
According to the principle here illustrated the still more minute
prophecy of the later period of the Graeco-Macedonian otlier pr0phet-
Empire, in Dan. xi, is seen to travel over much of the ic repetitions,
same field as those of chapters vii and viii. In the same manner
we should naturally presume that the seven vials of the seven last
plagues in Rev. xvi are intended to correspond with the seven woe-
trumpets of chapters viii-xi. The striking resemblances between
the two are such as to force a conviction that the terrible woes
^usey’s discussion of this subject (Lectures on Daniel, Oxford, 1868) is an illustra¬
tion of the dogmatic way in which a writer may magnify and mystify the merely for¬
mal and structural differences of visions. He affirms (p. 91): “The four-horned he-
goat cannot agree with the fourth empire, whose division into ten is marked by the ten
horns of the terrible beast and the ten toes of the image. Nor can the heavy ram,
with its two horns, be identified with the superhuman swiftness of the four-headed
leopard.” But, according to Pusey, the two-horned ram of chap, viii, 3, 4, corre¬
sponds with the bear of chap, vii, 5, and the he-goat corresponds with the four-winged
and four-headed leopard of chap, vii, 6. If, then, a ram with two horns “ pushing
westward, and northward, and southward, etc.” (viii, 4), agrees with a bear having no
horns at all, and, so far from pushing in any direction, is merely “ raised up on one
side ready to use the arm in which its chief strength lies,” and “ lifts itself up heav¬
ily, in contrast with the winged rapidity of the Chaldean conquests ” (Pusey, p. 72),
and holds three ribs in its teeth — with what consistency can it be claimed that the
differences in the descriptions of the little horns of chaps, vii and viii must be fun¬
damental ? Pusey has no difficulty in harmonizing a he-goat having one notable horn,
and then four horns in its place, and one little horn branching out of one of the four,
with a leopard having four wings and four heads ; but he pronounces it impossible
for a goat which at one stage has one horn, and at another four, to agree with a ter¬
rible beast which at one period had ten horns ! It is, forsooth, easy to harmonize an
animal having one horn and four horns, with an animal having four heads and four
wings, and no horns at all ; but impossible to believe that a goat having one horn,
and afterward four horns, can agree with a beast having ten horns ! Such incon¬
sistency cannot be based upon sound hermeneutical principles. See Zockler on Dan¬
iel in loco, translated and annotated by Strong in the American edition of Lange’s
Biblework.
412
PRINCIPLES OF
denoted by the trumpets are substantially identical with the plagues
denoted by the vials of wrath. A contrary opinion would make
the case a remarkable exception to the analogy of prophecy, and
should not be accepted without the most convincing reasons.
2. Figurative and Symbolical Style of Prophecy.
The fact already observed, that the word of prophecy was re-
.. ceived by visions and dreams, and in a state of ecstacy,
Imagery toe J
most natural accounts largely for the further fact that so great a
pressing *r^ve- portion of the prophetic Scriptures is set forth in figur¬
ations ob- ative language and in symbol.1 This important fact is
ions and too often overlooked in prophetic interpretation, and
dreams. hence has arisen the misleading doctrine that prophecy
is “history written beforehand.” Accepting such an idea, one is
prone to press the literal meaning of all passages which may, by any
possibility, admit of such a construction; and hence the endless con¬
troversies and vagaries in the exposition of the prophetical Scrip¬
tures. But observe for a moment the style and diction of the great
predictions. The first one on record announces a standing enmity
between the serpent and the woman and their progeny; and, ad¬
dressing the serpent, God says: “He shall bruise thy head, and
thou shalt bruise his heel” (Gen. iii, 15). There have not been
wanting literalists who have applied the prophecy to the enmity
between men and serpents, and Avho declare that it is fulfilled when¬
ever a serpent bites a man, or whenever a man crushes a serpent’s
head. But such an interpretation of the passage has never been
able to command any general acceptance. Its deeper import re¬
specting the children of light and the children of darkness, and
1 The fundamental reason of the figurative style, which is so prominent a charac¬
teristic of prophecy, must be sought in the mode of revelation by vision. In the
higher species of prophecy, which was connected with no ecstatic elevation on the
part of the writer, but with his ordinary frame of mind ; that, namely, of which the
most eminent examples are to be found in Moses and Christ ; the language employed
does not, in general, differ from the style of ordinary discourse. But prophecy,, in
the more special and peculiar sense, having been not only framed on purpose to veil
while it announced the future, but also communicated in vision to the prophets, must
have largely consisted of figurative representations; for, as in vision it is the im¬
aginative faculty that is more immediately called into play, images were necessary to
make on it the fitting impressions, and these impressions could only be conveyed to
others by means of figurative representations. Hence the two, prophetic visions and
figurative representations, are coupled together by the prophet Hosea (xii, 10) as the
proper correlatives of each other: “I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have
multiplied visions and used similitudes by the ministry of the prophets.” — Fairbairn
on Prophecy, p. 147.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
413
their respective heads (Messiah and Satan), has been universally rec¬
ognized by the best interpreters. “ It is a sign and witness,” says
Fairbairn, “ set up at the very threshold of the prophetic Fairbairn on
territory, showing how much prophecy, in the general Gen- m’ 15*
form of its announcements, might be expected to take its hue and as¬
pect from the occasion and circumstances that gave rise to it; how
it wTould serve itself of things seen and present as a symbolical
cover under which to exhibit a perspective of things which were to
be hereafter; and how, even when there might be a certain fulfil¬
ment of what -was written according to the letter, the terms of the
prediction might yet be such as to make it evident that something
of a higher kind was required properly to verify its meaning.
Such plainly was the case with respect to the prediction at the fall ;
and in proof that it must be so read and understood, some of the
later intimations of prophecy, which are founded upon the address
to the serpent, vary the precise form of the representation which
they give of the ultimate termination of the conflict. Thus Isaiah,
when descanting on the peace and blessedness of Messiah’s king¬
dom, tells us not of the serpent’s head being bruised, but of his
power to hurt being destroyed; of dust being his meat, and of the
child playing upon his hole (chapters xi, 8, 9; lxv, 25). It is the same
truth again that appears at the close of the Apocalypse under the
still different form of chaining the old serpent, and casting him into
the bottomless pit, that he might not deceive the nations any more
(Rev. xx, 2, 3) ; his power to deceive in the one case corresponding
to his liberty to bruise the heel in the other, and his being chained
and imprisoned in the bottomless pit to the threatened bruising of
his head.” 1
In like manner we note that Jacob’s dying prophecy (Gen. xlix)
is written in the highest style of poetic fervour and of Poetic form
figurative speech. All the events of the patriarch’s life manySpropbe-
and the storied fulness of the future moved his soul, cies.
and gave emotion to his words. The oracles of Balaam and the
songs of Moses are of the same high order. The Messianic
psalms abound with simile and metaphor, drawn from the heavens,
the earth, and the seas. The prophetical books are mostly written
in the forms and spirit of Hebrew poetry, and, in predictions of
notable events, the language often rises to forms of statement,
which, to an occidental critic, might seem a hyperbolical extrava¬
gance. Take, for example, the following “burden of Babylon”
wdiich Isaiah saw (njn), and note the excessive emotion and the
boldness of figures (Isa. xiii, 2-1 3) :
1 Fairbairn on Prophecy, p. 102.
414
PRINCIPLES OF
2 On a mountain bare set up a signal ;
Lift up a voice to them ; wave a hand.
And they shall enter gates of nobles.
3 Also I have called my mighty ones for my anger —
Those that exult proudly in my glory.
4 Voice of a multitude in the mountains, as of much people;
Voice of a tumult of kingdoms of nations assembled,
Jehovah of hosts mustering a host of battle ;
5 Coming from a land afar,
From the end of the heavens—
Jehovah and the instruments of his fury,
To lay waste all the land.
6 Howl ye! For near is the day of Jehovah ;
As a destruction from Shaddai shall it come.
7 Therefore shall all hands become slack,
And every heart of man shall melt.
8 And they shall be in trepidation ;
Wri things and throes shall seize them;
As the travailing woman shall they twist in pain.
Each at his neighbour they shall look astonished,
Their faces, faces of flames.
9 Behold, the day of Jehovah comes ;
Cruel — and wrath, and burning of anger,
To make the land a desolation,
And her sinners will be destroyed out of her.
10 For the stars of the heavens and their constellations
Shall not shed forth their light;
Dark has the sun become in his going: forth,
o o 1
And the moon will not cause her light to shine.
11 And I will visit upon the world evil,
And upon the wicked their iniquity.
And I will cause the arrogance of the proud to cease,
And the haughtiness of the lawless I bring low.
12 I will make men rarer than refined gold,
And mankind than the gold of Ophir.
13 Therefore I will make heaven tremble,
And the land shall shake from her place,
In the overflowing wrath of Jehovah of hosts,
And in the day of the burning of his anger.
It has never been questioned by the best interpreters that the
Refers to the above passage refers to the overthrow of Babylon by the
fail of Babylon. Medes. The heading of the chapter, and the specific
statements that follow (verses 17, 19), put this beyond all doubt.
And yet it is done, according to the prophet, by Jehovah, who
musters his host of mighty heroes from the end of the heavens,
causes a tumultuous noise of kingdoms of nations, fills human
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
415
hearts with trembling, and despair, and throes of agony, shakes
heaven and earth, and blots out sun, and moon, and stars. This
fearful judgment of Babylon is called “the day of Jehovah,” “ the
day of the burning of his anger.” Standing in the forefront of
Isaiah’s oracles against the heathen world-powers, it is a classic
passage of the kind, and its style and imagery would naturally be
followed by other prophets when announcing similar judgments.1
Such highly emotional and figurative passages are common to all
the prophetic writers, but in the so-called apocalyptic prominence of
prophets we note a peculiar prominence of symbolism, apocalyptic
In its earlier and yet undeveloped form it first strikes our books,
attention in the Book of Joel, which may be called the oldest apoca¬
lypse. But its fuller development appears among the later proph¬
ets, Daniel, Ezekiel, and Zechariah, and its perfected structure in
the New Testament Apocalypse of John. In the exposition, there¬
fore, of this class of prophecies it is of the first importance to apply
with judgment and skill the hermeneutical principles of biblical
symbolism. This process requires, especially, three Three herme-
things: (1) That we be able clearly to discriminate and eSies to beo\>-
determine what are symbols and what are not; (2) that served,
the symbols be contemplated in their broad and striking aspects
rather than their incidental points of resemblance; and (3) that
they be amply compared as to their general import and usage, so
that a uniform and self-consistent method be followed in their in¬
terpretation. A failure to observe the first of these will lead to
endless confusion of the symbolical and the literal. A failure in
the second tends to magnify minute and unimportant points to the
obscuring of the greater lessons, and to the misapprehension, oft-
times, of the scope and import of the whole. Not a few interpret¬
ers have put great stress upon the import of the ten toes of Nebu¬
chadnezzar’s image (Dan. ii, 41, 42), and have searched to find ten
kings to correspond; whereas, from aught that appears to the con¬
trary, the image may have had twelve toes, like the giant of Gath
1 “ Such passages,” says Fairbairn, “ are not to be regarded simply as highly
wrought descriptions in the peculiar style of oriental poetry, possessing but a slender
foundation of nature to rest upon. On the contrary they have their correspondence
in the literature of all nations, and their justification in the natural workings of the
human mind ; we mean its workings when under circumstances which tend to bring
the faculty of imagination into vigorous play, much as it was acted on with the
prophets when, in ecstacy, they received divine revelations. For it is the character¬
istic of this faculty when possessed in great strength, and operated upon by stirring
events such as mighty revolutions and distressing calamities, that it fuses every ob¬
ject by its intense radiation, and brings them into harmony with its own prevailing
passion or feeling.” — Prophecy, p. 158.
416
PRINCIPLES OF
(2 Sam. xxi, 20). A care to observe the third rule will enable one
to note the differences as well as the likeness of similar symbols,
and save him from the error of supposing that the same symbol,
when employed by two different writers, must denote the same
power, person, or event.
3. Analysis and Comparison of Similar Prophecies.
Not only are the same, or like figures and symbols, employed by
different prophets, but also many whole prophecies are so like one
another in their general form and import as to require of the inter¬
preter a minute comparison. Thus only can he distinguish things
which are alike and things which differ.
First we observe numerous instances in which one prophet ap-
verbai anaio- pears to quote from another. Isa. ii, 1-4 is almost iden-
gies. tical with Micah iv, 1-3, and it has been a problem of
critics to determine whether Isaiah quoted from Micah, or Micah
from Isaiah, or both of them from an older prophet now unknown.
Jeremiah’s prophecy against Edom (xlix, 7-22) is appropriated
largely from Obadiah. The Epistle of Jude and the second chap¬
ter of Peter’s Second Epistle furnish a similar analogy. A compar¬
ison of the oracles against the heathen nations by Balaam, Amos,
Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, as already indicated, shows many
verbal parallels. From all which it appears that these sacred writ¬
ers freely appropriated forms of expression from each other as from
a common treasure house.1 The word of God, once uttered by an
inspired man, became the common property of the chosen people,
and was used by them as times and occasions served.
The twofold presentation of prophetic revelations, both of vis-
Twofoid pre- ions and of dreams, demands particular attention. It
prophetic rev- *s ^rst brought to our attention in the dreams of Joseph
eiations. and of Pharaoh, and as we have seen above (pp. 398,
399), the double dream was, in its significance, but one, and the
repetition under different symbols was the divine method of inten¬
sifying the impression, and indicating the certainty of the things
revealed. “ As to the doubling of the dream to Pharaoh twice, it
is because the word (“C^n, this particular revelation) from God
is established, and God is hastening to accomplish it” (Gen. xli, 32).
A principle of prophetic interpretation so explicitly enunciated
in the earliest records of divine revelation deserves to be made
1 “ Such verbal repetitions,” says Hengstenberg, “ must not be, by any means, con¬
sidered as unintentional remihiscences. They served to exhibit that the prophets ac¬
knowledged one another as the organs of the Holy Spirit.” — Christology, vol. i,
p. 291.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
417
prominent.1 It serves as a key to the explanation of many of the
most difficult questions involved in the apocalyptic Scriptures. W e
shall have occasion to illustrate this principle more fully in treating
the visions of Daniel and John.
It is important, furthermore, to study the analogies of imagery
in the apocalyptic portions of prophecy. Isaiah’s vis- Analogies of
ion of the Seraphim (Isa. vi, 1-8), Ezekiel’s vision of ima&ery.
the Living Creatures (Ezek. i and x), and John’s vision of the
throne in heaven (Rev. iv), have manifest relations to one another
which no interpreter can fail to observe. The scope and bearing
of each can, however, be apprehended only as we study them from
the standpoint of each individual prophet. Daniel’s vision of the
four beasts out of the sea (Dan. vii) furnishes the imagery by
which John depicts his one beast out of the sea (Rev. xiii, 1-2),
and we note that the one beast of the latter, being a nameless mon¬
ster, combines also the other main features (leopard, bear, lion) of
the four beasts of the former. John’s second beast out of the
earth, with two horns like a lamb (Rev. xiii, 11), combines much
of the imagery of both the ram and the lie-goat of Daniel (viii,
1-12). Zechariah’s vision of the four chariots, drawn by different
coloured horses (vi, 1-7), forms the basis of the symbolism of the
first four seals (Rev. vi, 1-8), and John’s glowing picture of the
New Jerusalem, the new heavens and the new land (xxi, xxii), is a ,
manifest counterpart of the closing chapters of Ezekiel. The most
noticeable difference, perhaps, is that Ezekiel has a long and minute
description of a temple and its service (xl-xliv), while no temple
appears in the vision of John, but rather the city itself becomes all
temple, nay, a Holy of Holies, being filled with the glory of God
and of the Lamb (Rev. xxi, 3, 22, 23).
It will be evident from the above-mentioned analogies that no prop¬
er interpretation of any one of these similar prophecies similar imag-
can be given without a clear analysis and careful compar- different^sub-
ison of all. We are not to assume, however, that by the jects.
use of the same or similar imagery one prophet must needs refer to
the same subject as the other. The two olive trees of Rev. xi, 4
are not necessarily the same as those of Zech. iv, 3, 14. The
beasts of John’s Apocalypse are not necessarily identical with those
of Daniel. John’s vision of the new heaven, and the new land,
and the golden city, is doubtless a fuller revelation of redeemed
Israel than Ezekiel’s corresponding vision. But one of these vis¬
ions cannot be fully expounded without the other, and each should
1 For many valuable suggestions on what he calls the “ Double Allegory,” see
Cochran, The Revelation of John its Own Interpreter, New York, 1860.
27
418
PRINCIPLES OF
be subjected to a minute analysis, and studied from its own histor¬
ical or visional standpoint.
From these considerations it will be also seen that, while duly
General sum- appreciating the peculiarities of prophecy, we neverthe
mair- less must employ in its interpretation essentially the
same great principles as in the interpretation of other ancient writ¬
ings. First, we should ascertain the historical position of the
prophet; next the scope and plan of his book; then the usage and
import of his words and symbols; and, finally, ample and discrimi¬
nating comparison of the parallel Scriptures should be made.
CHAPTER XXII.
DANIEL’S VISION OF THE FOUR EMPIRES.
All interpreters agree that the empires or world-powers denoted by
Principles ii- the various parts of the great image in Dan. ii, 31-45,
lustrated by an(j Ly f0ur beasts from the sea (Dan. vii), are the
revelation of same. I he prophecy is repeated under difterent symbols,
empires. Rut the interpretation is one. This double revelation,
then, will be of special value in illustrating the hermeneutical prin¬
ciples already enunciated. But in no portion of Scripture do we
need to exercise greater discrimination and care. These prophe¬
cies, in their details, have been variously understood, and the most
able and accomplished exegetes have differed widely in their ex¬
planations. All dogmatism of tone and method should therefore be
excluded, and we should endeavour to place ourselves in the very
position of the prophet, and study with minute attention his lan¬
guage and his symbols. Where such wide differences of opinion
have prevailed we cannot for a moment allow any a priori assump¬
tions of what ought to be found in these prophecies, or of what
ought not to be found there.1 All such assumptions are fatal to
1 The Roman Empire, the papacy, the Mohammedans, the Goths and Vandals, the
French Revolution, the Crimean War, the United States of America, and our late civil
war between the North and the South, have all been assumed to have such an import¬
ance in the history of humanity and of the Gospel that we should expect to find
some notice of them somewhere in the prophets of the Bible. Daniel and the Reve¬
lation of John, abounding as they do in vision and symbol, have been searched more
than other prophecies with such an expectation. We find even Barnes writing as
follows : “ The Roman Empire wras in itself too important, and performed too import¬
ant an agency in preparing the world for the kingdom of the Redeemer, to be omitted
in such an enumeration.” — Notes on Dan. ii, 40, p. 147. On the same principle we
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
419
sound interpretation. The prophet should be permitted, as far as
possible, to explain himself; and the interpreter should not be so
lull of ideas drawn from profane history, or from remote ages and
peoples, as to desire to find in Daniel what is not manifestly there.
Especially when it is a notable fact that profane history knows
nothing of Belshazzar,1 or of Darius the Mede, should we be cau¬
tious how far we allow our interpretation of other parts of Daniel
to be controlled by such history.
Ihree different interpretations of Daniel’s vision of the four
world-powers have long prevailed. According to the Three different
first and oldest of these, the fourth kingdom is the interpretations.
Roman Empire; another identifies it with the mixed dominion of
Alexander’s successors, and a third makes it include Alexander and
his successors.2 Those who adopt this last view regard the Median
rule of Darius at Babylon (Dan. v, 31) as a distinct dynasty. The
four kingdoms, according to these several expositions, may be seen
in the following outline:
1st. 2d.
1. Babylonian. 1. Babylonian.
2. Medo-Persian. 2. Medo-Persian.
3. Grasco-Macedonian. 3. Alexander.
4. Roman. 4. Alexander’s successors.
3d.
1. Babylonian.
2. Median.
3. Persian.
4. Graeco-Macedonian.
Any one of these views will suffice to bring out the great ethical and
religious lessons of the prophecy. No doctrine, therefore, is affected,
might insist that the Chinese Empire, with its great dynasties, and countless millions
of people, and also those of India and Japan, should also have some kind of notice.
We have no right to assume in advance what Daniel’s vision or Nebuchadnezzar’s
dream should contain.
1 This fact greatly puzzled all expositors until an inscription discovered on a cylin¬
der at Mugheir showed that a Bcl-shar-uzur was associated with his father as co-regent
at Babylon. See Rawlinson, Ancient Monarchies, vol. iii, p. 70. New York, 1871.
2 The first of these views is ably defended by Barnes, Pusev, and Keil, and is the
one held, probably, by most evangelical divines. The second has its ablest advocates
in Bertholdt, Stuart, and Cowles. The third is maintained by Eichhorn, Lengevke,
Maurer, Bleek, De Wette, Hilgenfeld, Kranickfeld, Dclitzsch, and Westcott. It is
quite possible that the prevalence among English expositors of the first theory is
largely, if not mainly, due to the fact that the arguments in its favour have been scat¬
tered broadcast by the popular commentaries, and the able expositions of the other
theories have been quite generally inaccessible to English readers. Many have ac¬
cepted the current exposition because they never had a better one clearly set before
them. It is almost amusing to hear some of the advocates of the Roman theory say¬
ing, with Luther : “ In this interpretation and opinion ail the world are agreed, and
history and fact abundantly establish it” (see Keil, p. 245). Desprez is equally in¬
teresting when he says: “The almost unanimous opinion of modern criticism is in
favour of a separate Median kingdom, distinct from the united Medo-Persian Empire
under Cyrus.” — Daniel and John, p. 50.
420
PRINCIPLES OF
whichever interpretation we adopt. The question at issue is purely
one of exegetical accuracy and self-consistency: Which view best
satisfies all the conditions of prophet, language, and symbol?
Great stress has been laid by the advocates of the Roman theory
upon three considerations: (1) First they urge that
Argument m * . _ v ' „ . . - . ,
favour of the Rome was too important to be iert out or sight in such
Roman theory. a Y[8[on 0f world-empire. “ The Roman kingdom,”
says Keil, “was the first universal monarchy in the full sense.
Along with the three earlier, world-kingdoms, the nations of tbe
world-historical future remained still unsubdued.” 1 But such pre¬
sumptions cannot properly be allowed to weigh at all. It matters
not in the least how great Rome was, or how important a place
it occupies in universal history. The sole question with the inter¬
preter of Daniel must be, What world-powers, great or small, fell
within his circle of prophetic vision ? This presumption in favour of
Rome is more than offset by the consideration that geographically
and politically that later empire had its seat and centre of influ¬
ence far aside from the territory of the Asiatic kingdoms. But
the Graeco-Macedonian Empire, in all its relations to Israel, and,
indeed, in its principal component elements, was an Asiatic,
not a European, world-power. The • prophet, moreover, makes
repeated allusion to kings of Greece (|F, Javan), but never mentions
Rome.
(2) It is further argued that the strong and terrible character of the
iron strength fourth kingdom is best fulfilled in Rome. No previous
and violence, dominion, it is said, was of such an iron nature, break¬
ing all things in pieces.2 Here again we must insist that the ques¬
tion is not so much whether the imagery fits Rome, but whether it
may not also appropriately depict some other kingdom. The de¬
scription of iron strength and violence is, no doubt, appropriate to
Rome, but for any one to aver that the conquests and rule of Alex¬
ander and his successors did not “ break in pieces and bruise ” (Dan.
ii, 40), and trample with terrible violence the kingdoms of many
nations, is to exhibit a marvellous obtuseness in reading the facts
of history. The Graeco-Macedonian power broke up the older civil¬
izations, and trampled in pieces the various elements of the Asiatic
1 Biblical Commentary on Daniel, p. 26V. English translation. Edinburgh, 18V2.
2 “Neither the monarchy of Alexander,” says Keil (p. 252), “nor the Javanic world-
kingdom accords with the iron nature of the fourth kingdom, represented by the legs
of iron, breaking all things in pieces, nor with the internal division of this kingdom,
represented by the feet consisting partly of iron and partly of clay, nor finally with
the ten toes formed of iron and clay mixed.” Such an assertion from a commentator
usually so guarded and trustworthy inclines one to believe that its author was here
labouring under the blinding effects of a foregone conclusion.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
421
monarchies more completely than had ever been done before.
Rome never had any such triumph in the Orient, and, indeed, no
great Asiatic world-power, comparable for magnitude and power
with that of Alexander, ever succeeded his. If now we keep in
mind this utter overthrow and destruction of the older dynasties
by Alexander, and then observe what seems especially to have
affected Daniel, namely, the wrath and violence of the “little
horn,” and note how, in different forms, this bitter and relent¬
less persecutor is made prominent in this book (chapters viii and
xi), we may safely say that the conquests of Alexander, and the
blasphemous fury of Antiochus Epiphanes, in his violence against
the chosen people, amply fulfilled the prophecies of the fourth
kingdom.
(3) It is also claimed that the Roman theory is favoured by the
statement, in chap, ii, 44, that the kingdom of God should be set up
“in the days of those kings.” For the Roman Empire, it is urged,
ruled Palestine when Christ appeared, and all the other great mon¬
archies had passed away. But on what ground can it be quietly
assumed that “ these kings ” are Roman kings ? If we say that
they are kings denoted by the toes of the image, inasmuch as the
stone smote the image on the feet (ii, 34), we involve ourselves in
serious confusion. The Christ appeared when Rome was in the
meridian of her power and glory. It was three hundred years
later when the empire was divided, and much later still when bro¬
ken in pieces and made to pass away. But the stone smote not the
legs of iron, but the feet, which were partly of iron and partly of
clay (ii, 33, 34). When, therefore, it is argued that the Graeco-
Macedonian power had fallen before the Christ was born, it may on
the other hand be replied with greater force that a much longer
time elapsed after the coming of Christ before the power of Rome
was broken in pieces.
Evidently, therefore, no satisfactory conclusion can be reached as
long as we allow ourselves to be governed by subjective _ ■ ..
notions of the import of minor features of the symbols, sumptions must
or by assumptions of what the prophet ought to have besetaside*
seen. The advocates of the Roman theory are continually laying
stress upon the supposed import of the two arms, and two legs, and
ten toes of the image; whereas these are merely the natural parts
of a human image, and necessary to complete a coherent outline.
The prophet lays no stress upon them in his exposition, and it is
nowhere said that the image had ten toes. We must appeal to a
closer view of the prophet’s historical standpoint and his outlying
field of vision; and especially should we study his visions in the
423
PRINCIPLES OF
light of his own explanations and historical statements, rather than
from the narratives of the Greek historians.
Applying principles already sufficiently emphasized, we first at-
Damei’s histor- tend tP Daniel’s historical position. At his first vision
icai standpoint. Nebuchadnezzar was reigning in great splendour (Dan.
ii, 37, 38). At his second, Belshazzar occupied the throne of Baby¬
lon (vii, 1). This monarch, unknown to the Greek historians, fills
an important place in the Book of Daniel. He was slain in the
night on which Babylon was taken, and the kingdom passed into the
hand of Darius the Mede (v, 30, 31). Whatever we may think or
say, Daniel recognizes Darius as the representative of a new dy¬
nasty upon the throne of Babylon (ix, l). The prophet held a High
position in his government (vi, 2, 3), and during his reign was mir¬
aculously delivered from the den of lions. Darius the Mede was a
. monarch with authority to issue prolamations “to all
Prominence of J 1 . . . ,
the Medes in people, nations, and languages that dwelt m all the
Scripture. iand » ^ 25). From Daniel’s point of view, therefore,
the Median domination of Babylon was no such insignificant thing
as many expositors, looking more to profane history than to the
Bible itself, are wont to pronounce it. Isaiah had foretold that
Babylon should fall by the power of the Medes (Isa. xiii, 17;
xxi, 2), and Jeremiah had repeated the prophecy (Jer. li, 11, 28).
Daniel lived to see the kingdom pass into the hands of Cyrus the
Persian, and in the third year of his reign received the minute rev¬
elation of chapters x and xi touching the kings of Persia and of
Greece. Already, in the reign of Belshazzar, had he received spe¬
cific revelations of the kings of Greece who were to succeed the
kings of Media and Persia (viii, 1, 21). But no mention of any
world-power later than Greece is to be found in the Book of Daniel.
The prophetic standpoint of chap, viii is Shushan, the throne-centre
of the Medo-Persian dominion, and long after the Medes had ceased
to hold precedence in the kingdom. All these things, bearing on
the historical position of this prophet, are to be constantly kept
in view.
Having vividly apprehended the historical standpoint of the
The varied but er> we should next take up the prophecies which he
parallel de- has himself most clearly explained, and reason from
what is clear to what is not clear. In the explanation
of the great image (ii, 36-45), and of the four beasts (vii, 17-27),
we find no mention of any of the world-powers by name, except
Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar (ii, 38). But the description and
explanation of the fourth beast, in vii, 17-27, correspond so fully
with those of the he-goat in chap, viii as scarcely to leave any rea-
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
423
sonable ground to doubt tliat they are but varied portraitures of the
same great world-power, and that, power is declared in the latter
chapter to be the Grecian (viii, 21). In chap, xi, 3 the Grecian
power is again taken up, its partly strong and partly brittle charac¬
ter (comp. Dan. ii, 42) is exhibited, together with the attempts of
the rival kings to strengthen themselves by intermarriage (comp,
ii, 43 and xi, 0), and also the conflicts of these kings, especially
those between the Ptolemies and the Seleucids. At verse 21 is
introduced the “ vile person ” (npJ, despised or despicable one), and
the description through the rest of the chapter of his deceit and
cunning, his violence and his sacrilegious impiety, is but a more
fully detailed picture of the king denoted by the little horn of chap¬
ters vii and viii. As the repetition of Joseph’s and Pharaoh’s dreams
served to impress them the more intensely, and to show that the
things were established by God (Gen. xli, 32), so the repetition of
these prophetic visions under different forms and imagery served to
emphasize their truth and certainty. There appears to be no good
ground to doubt that the little horn of chap, viii, and the vile per¬
son of chap, xi, 21, denoted Antiochus Epiphanes. We have shown
above (pp. 410,411) that the reasons commonly alleged to prove that
the little horn of chap, viii denotes a different person from the little
horn of chap, vii are superficial and nugatory. It follows, there¬
fore, that the fourth kingdom described in chapters ii, 40 ff., vii,
23 ff., is the same as the Grecian kingdom symbolized by the he-goat
in chap. viii. The repetitions and varied descriptions of this tre¬
mendous power are in perfect accord with other analogies of the
style and structure of apocalyptic prophecy.
If we have applied our principles fairly thus far, it now follows
that we must find the four kingdoms of Daniel between The prophet
Nebuchadnezzar and Alexander the Great, including ^ ea£
these two monarchs. Reasoning and searching from plain himself.
Daniel’s position, and by the light of his own interpretations, we
are obliged to adopt the third view named above, according to
which the four kingdoms are, respectively, the Babylonian, the
Median, the Persian, and the Graeco-Macedonian. We have been
able to find but two real arguments against this view, namely,
(l) the assumption that the Median rule of Babylon was too insig¬
nificant to be thus mentioned, and (2) the statement of chap, viii,
20 that the ram denoted the kings of Media and Persia. The first
argument should have no force with those who allow Daniel to ex¬
plain himself. He clearly recognizes Darius the Mede as the suc¬
cessor of Belshazzar on the throne of Babylon (v, 31). This
Darius was iC the son of Ahasuerus of the seed of the Medes
424
PRINCIPLES OF
(ix, 1), and though he reigned but two years, that reign was, from
the prophet’s standpoint, as truly a new world-power at Babylon as
if he had reigned fifty years. Whatever his relation to Cyrus the
Persian, he set a hundred and twenty princes over his kingdom
(vi, 1), and assumed to issue decrees for “ all people, nations, and
languages” (vi, 25, 26). Most writers have seemed strangely un¬
willing to allow Daniel’s statements as much weight as those of the
Greek historians, who are notably confused and unsatisfactory in
their accounts of Cyrus and of his relations to the Medes.
The other argument, namely, that in chap, viii, 20, the two-horned
, ram denotes “ the kings of Media and Persia,” is very
The prophet’s , _ „ . . . .
point of view properly supposed to show that Daniel himseli recog¬
in Dan. viii. njge(j ]y|e(jes anq Persians as constituting one mon¬
archy. But this argument is set aside by the fact that the position
of the prophet in chap, viii is Shushan (ver. 2), the royal residence
and capital of the later Medo-Persian monarchy (Nell, i, 1; Esther
i, 2). The standpoint of the vision is manifestly in the last period
of the Persian rule, and long after the Median power at Babylon
had ceased to exist. The Book of Esther, written during this later
period, uses the expression “Persia and Media” (Esther i, 3, 14,
18, 19), thus implying that Persia then held the supremacy. The
facts, then, according to Daniel, are that a Median world-power
succeeded the Babylonian; but that, under Cyrus the Persian, it
subsequently lost its earlier precedence, and Media became thor¬
oughly consolidated with Persia into the one great empire known
in other history as the Medo-Persian.
With this view all the prophecies of Daniel readily harmonize,
inner harmony According to chap, ii, 39, the second kingdom was in-
ions ?o Te ferior to that Nebuchadnezzar, and in vii, 5, it is
sought. represented by a bear raised up on one side, and holding
three ribs between his teeth. It has no prominence in the interpre¬
tation given by the prophet, and nothing could more fitly symbolize
the Median rule at Babylon than the image of a bear, sluggish,
grasping, and devouring what it has, but getting nothing more than
its three ribs, though loudly called on to “ arise and devour much
flesh.” No ingenuity of critics has ever been able to make these
representations of the second kingdom tally with the facts of the
Medo-Persian monarchy. Except in golden splendour this latter
was in no sense inferior to the Babylonian,1 for its dominion was
2 Calvin, Auberlen, and others think the Medo-Persian was inferior in moral condi¬
tion to the Babylonian. But surely the Persian monotheism was far higher in point
of moral and religious worth than the polytheism of Babylon. Keil and others find
the inferiority of the Medo-Persian monarchy in its want of inner unity , the combina-
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
425
every way broader and mightier. It was well represented by the
fleet leopard with the four wings and four heads which, like the
third kingdom of brass, acquired wide dominion over all the earth
(comp, ii, 39, and vii, 6), but not by the sluggish, half -reclining
bear, which merely grasped and held the ribs put in its mouth, but
seemed indisposed to arise and seek more prey.
Those interpreters who adopt the second view above named, and,
distinguishing between Alexander and his successors, The Diadochoi
make these latter constitute the fourth kingdom, have theory*
brought most weighty and controlling arguments against the first
or Roman theory,1 showing that chronologically, geographically,
politically, and in relation to the Jewish people, the Roman Empire
is excluded from the range of Daniel’s prophecies. “ The Roman
Empire,” says Cowles, “ came into no important relations to the
Jews until the Christian era, and never disturbed their repose effect¬
ually until A. D. 7 0. . . . Rome never was Asiatic, never was orien¬
tal; never, therefore, was a legitimate successor of the first three
of these great empires. . . . Rome had the seat of her power and
the masses of her population in another and remote part of the
world.” 2
But this second theory is unable to show any sufficient reason for
dividing the dominion of Alexander and his successors Dominion of
into two distinct monarchies. According to every prop- Alexander and
er analogy and implication, the fourth beast with its ^0st tXmtrer-
ten horns and one little horn of chap, vii, and the he- entworid-pow-
goat with its one great horn and its four succeeding ones,
and the little horn out of one of these— as presented in chap, viii, 8, 9,
2i_23 — all represent but one world-power. From Daniel’s point of
vision these could not be separated, as the Median domination at
Babylon was separated from the Chaldsean on the one side, and the
later Medo-Persian on the other. It would be an unwarrantable
confusion of symbols to make the horns of a beast represent a dif¬
ferent kingdom from that denoted by the beast itself. The two
horns of the Medo-Persian ram are not to be so understood, for the
Median and Persian elements are, according to chap, viii, 20, sym¬
bolized by the whole body, not exclusively by the horns of the ram,
and the vision of the prophet is from a standpoint where the Median
tion of Medes and Persians being an element of weakness. But, from all that appears
in history, this combination of two great peoples was an element of might and majesty
rather than of weakness or of inferiority.
1 See Stuart’s “ Excursus on the Fourth Beast ” in his Commentary on Daniel, pp,
205-210. Cowles’ Notes on Daniel, pp. 354-371, and Zoekler on Daniel ii and vii in
Lange’s Biblework, translated and annotated by Strong.
2 Notes on Daniel vii, 28, p. 355.
426
PRINCIPLES OF
and Persian powers have become fully consolidated into one great
empire. If, in chap, viii, 8, 9, we regard the goat and his first horn
as denoting one ^world-power, and the four succeeding horns an¬
other and distinct world-power, analogy requires that we should
'also make the ten horns of the fourth beast (vii, 7, 8, 24) denote a
kingdom different from the beast itself. Then, again, what a con¬
fusion of symbols would be introduced in these parallel visions if
we make a leopard with four wings and four heads in one vision
(vii, 6) correspond with the one horn of a he-goat in another, and
the terrible fourth beast of chap, vii, 7, horns and all, correspond
merely with the horns of the goat!
From every point of view, therefore, we are driven by our her¬
meneutical principles to hold that view of Daniel’s four
Conclusion. gymRolic beasts which makes them represent, respect¬
ively, the Babylonian, the Median, the Medo-Persian. and the Gre¬
cian domination of Western Asia. But the “Ancient of days”
(vii, 9-12) brought them into judgment, and took away their do¬
minion before he enthroned the Son of man in hi3 everlasting
kingdom. The penal judgment is represented as a great assize, the
books are opened, and countless thousands attend the bidding of
the Judge. The blasphemous beast- is slain, his body is destroyed
and given to burning flames, and his dominion is rent from him,
and consumed by a gradual destruction (verses 10, 11, 26).
We have dwelt the longer on these prophecies because their
Each book of proper interpretation is of fundamental importance in
studied0^ as illustrating the principles by which we are to explain
whole. other apocalyptic visions. It must be evident that a
book of prophecy should be studied as a whole, so that if there be
any marked correlation of its several parts, or any system or prin¬
ciples of interpretation deducible from comparison and analogy,
they may be duly noted. , The minor points should then be studied
in the light of the whole revelation. It has been generally con¬
ceded that Daniel’s prophecies and the Apocalypse of John have
notable analogies, and may be profitably studied in connexion with
each other. The same may be said of large portions of Ezekiel and
Zechariak. But we must not therefore assume that these different
prophets, by the use of like symbols, all treat the same subjects,
and that the riders on different coloured horses in Zeehariah, and
the beasts in Daniel, denote the same things as the corresponding
symbols in John. Like symbols must represent like things, but not
necessarily the same things.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
427
CHAPTER XXIII.
OLD TESTAMENT APOCALYPTICS.
Apocalyptics is a theological term of recent origin employed in
biblical literature to designate a class of prophetic
writings which refer to impending or future judgments, aiyptics^
and the final triumph and glory of the Messianic king- flue<L
dom. Biblical apocalyptics is defined by Liicke as “ the sum total
(Inbegriff) of the eschatological revelations of the Old and the New
Testament.”1 To this class we assign the oracles of Joel, large
portions of Daniel, Ezekiel, and Zechariah, our Lord’s eschatolog¬
ical discourse in Matt, xxiv, and its parallels in Mark and Luke,
Paul’s doctrine of the Parousia in the Thessalonian epistles, and in
.1 Cor. xv, and the Apocalypse of John. The great theme of all
these apocalyptic Scriptures is the holy kingdom of God in its con¬
flict with the godless and persecuting powers of the world — a con¬
flict in which the ultimate triumph of righteousness is assured.2
“ The name apocalyptic,” says Auberlen, “ signifies that the divine
communication and revelation are more prominent in the prophet
than the human mediation and receptivity, for airondXv'ipig (revela¬
tion) signifies a divine, Trpo^rem (prophecy) a human activity. . . .
The two expressions are used as two distinct species of one and the
same genus, according as the objective revelation or the subjective
inspiration is more prominent. Thus St. Paul distinguishes them
1 Versuch einer vollstandigen Einleitung in die Offenbarung des Johannes, p. 25.
Second ed., Bonn, 1852. See his whole chapter entitled Erorterung des Begriffs oder
Theorie der Apokalyptik, pp. 17-39; and compare Hilgenfeld, Die jiidische Apokalyp¬
tik, Einleitung, pp.* 1-16 (Jena, 1857); Diisterdieck, Kritisch-exegetisehes Handbuch
liber die Offenbarung Johannis, pp. 35-46 (Gottingen, 1877); Lange, The Revelation
of John, pp. 1-6. American ed., New York, 1874.
2 The amount of apocryphal apocalyptical literature still extant is very large, and
may be divided into Jewish and Christian apocalyptics. Comp. Liicke, pp. 223-230.
Much of it may be properly called Jewish-Christian ; but, altogether, it is of little
value in the elucidation of scriptural prophecy, which holds an incomparable eleva¬
tion above it. Liicke and Stuart devote a considerable part of their works on the
Apocalypse to an account of these pseudepigraphal books. Hilgenfeld (Jiidische
Apokalyptik, pp. 5-8) disregards entirely the distinction between canonical and apoc¬
ryphal apocalyptics, and treats the books of Daniel, Enoch, Pseudo-Ezra, and the
Sibylline Oracles as a precursory history (Vorgeschichte) of Christianity. But most,
if not all, of the apocryphal Apocalypses (at least in their present form) are posterior
to the Christian Scriptures.
428
PRINCIPLES OF
in 1 Cor. xiv, 6: ‘either by revelation or by prophecy. ... In
prophecy the Spirit of God, who inspires the human organ of reve¬
lation, finds his immediate expression in words; in the Apocalypse
human language disappears, for the reason given by the apostle
(2 Cor. xii, 4) : he ‘ heard unspeakable words which it is not lawful
for a man to utter.’ A new element appears here which cor¬
responds to the subjective element of seeing, the vision. The
prophet’s eye is opened to look into the unseen world; he has inter¬
course with angels; and as he thus beholds the unseen, he beholds
also the future, which appears to him embodied in plastic symbolic
shapes as in a dream, only that these images are not the children of
his own fancy, but the product of divine revelation adapting itself
essentially to our human horizon.” 1
Although apocalyptics may thus be distinguished from other
prophetic Scriptures, the same hermeneutical principles
Same herme- r r r , . , ,
neuticai prin- are applicable to them all. We have already examined
mpies. most of the apocalyptic portions of Daniel and Zecha-
riah; it remains for us to show the application of the principles we
have enunciated to other eschatological prophecies, especially those
of the New Testament. We find the same formal elements,® the
same wealth of figure and symbol, and a constant reference to the
great day of the Lord in the words of Joel, the visions of Ezekiel,
the twenty-fourth of Matthew, the Epistles to the Thessalonians,
the Book of Revelation, and in other less noticeable Scriptures.
The Revelation of Joel.
A scientific treatise on biblical apocalyptics should begin with an
Joel the oldest anatysis °f Book of Joel. “ If Joel and other proph-
formai Apoca- ets had been secular writers,” says Meyrick, “ we should
lypse' say that with Joel originated that apocalyptic literature
which culminated in the Book of Revelation. Being what they
are, we say that it pleased God first to reveal to Joel that which he,
in a similar, though not m the same, form afterward revealed to his
other prophets respecting the end of the world and the occurrences
which were to precede it. The glorious prospect of a future bless¬
edness became the inheritance of the J ewish people from the time of
Joel onward, and with it the terrors of the day of judgment. The
prophetic form which the idea takes in Joel and his successors is
that of a universal reign of righteousness, peace and happiness,
1 The Prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation of St. John viewed in their mutual
Relation, pp. 80, 83, 84. Edinb., 1856.
2 See Lange, on the Formal Elements of Apocalyptics, in his Introduction to the
Revelation of John, American edition, pp. 14-41.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
429
under the visible headship of Jehovah, the centre of whose king¬
dom would be the earthly Jerusalem. This glorious period is
to be inaugurated by a terrible * day of the Lord ’ (itself ushered
in by signs and wonders in the universe) wherein, the Jewish exiles
having been restored, a judgment will be pronounced by Jehovah
in solemn assize upon all the heathen; and the foes of Jehovah and
of his people Israel will be exterminated. Our Lord, divesting the
idea, which is permanent, of the form, which is transitory, declares
to us that the ‘ day of the Lord ’ shall come, ushered in by the signs
and wonders described by the prophet; that he, the Son of man,
shall sit upon the throne of his glory; that, his elect having been
gathered from all quarters, he shall give solemn judgment upon all
nations collected before him; and that those who are his foes, and
the foes of his elect, will be dismissed into everlasting punishment,
while the righteous are admitted to the inheritance of the kingdom
prepared for them from the foundation of the world (Matt, xxiv-
xxv). St. John, in like manner, in his final apocalyptic visions, sees
Joel’s vision spiritualized — the gathering of the heathen, the day of
judgment, the destruction of the wicked, and the creation of the
new Jerusalem, in which God’s people shall dwell forever around
the throne of God and of the Lamb. . . . The dearest hopes and the
most awful fears which encourage and restrain the human race at
the present day were revealed by God to the prophet Joel, and
from his time onward became the inheritance of his Church.”1
These formal elements of the chief apocalyptic prophecies should
receive our careful attention as they appear in Joel. Analysis of Jo-
His prophecy is arranged in two leading divisions, ei s prophecy.
The first part consists of a twofold revelation of judgment, each
revelation being accompanied by words of divine counsel and prom¬
ise (chapters i, 1-ii, 27); the second part goes over a portion of the
same field again,' but delineates more clearly the blessings and tri¬
umph which shall accompany the day of Jehovah (chapters ii, 28—
iii, 21; Hebrew text, chapters iii and iv). These two parts may
be properly entitled: (l) Jehovah’s impending judgments ; (2) Je¬
hovah’s coming triumph and glory. The first may again be sub¬
divided into four sections, the second into three, as follows:
1. Chap, i, 1-12. After the manner of Moses, in Exod. x, 1-0,
Joel is commissioned to announce a fourfold plague of locusts.
What one swarm leaves behind them another devours (ver. 4), until
1 Speaker’s Commentary, vol. vi, pp. 494, 495. Merx, also, though singularly mis¬
apprehending the historical standpoint of the prophet Joel, recognizes the eschatolog¬
ical and apocalyptic character of his prophecies. See his Die Prophetie des Joel und
ihre Ausleger, pp. 62-78. Halle, 1879.
430
PRINCIPLES OF
all vegetation is destroyed, and the whole land is left in mourning.
This fourfold scourge, as a beginning of sorrows in the impending
day of Jehovah, should be compared with the four riders on differ¬
ent coloured horses, and the four horns of Zech. i, 8, 18, the four
war chariots of Zech. vi, 1-8, the wars, famines, pestilences, and
earthquakes of Matt, xxiv, 7; Luke xxi, 10, 11, and the four horses
of Rev. vi, 1-8. It is thus a habit of apocalyptics to represent
punitive judgments in a fourfold manner.
2. Chap, i, 13-20. After the manner of Jehoshaphat, when the
combined forces of Moab, Ammon, and Seir were marching against
him (2 Chron. xx, 1-13), the prophet calls upon the priests to
lament, and proclaim a fast, and gather the people in solemn assem¬
bly to bewail the awful day that is coming as a destruction from
Shaddai. Under this head other features of the calamity are inci¬
dentally mentioned, as the distress of beast, cattle, and flock, and
the ravages of fire (verses 18-20).
3. Chap, ii, 1-11. In this section the prophet proclaims the day
of Jehovah in still more fearful aspects. Under the blended ima¬
gery of darkness, devouring fire, numberless locusts, and rushing
armies (all which are represented in a plague of locusts),1 the earth
and the heavens are shaken, and sun, moon, and stars withhold
their light.
4. Chap, ii, 12-27. The second portrayal of the great and terri¬
ble day is in turn followed by another call to penitence, fasting,
and prayer, and also the promise of deliverance and glorious recom¬
pense. So the double proclamation of judgment has for each
announcement a corresponding word of counsel and hope.
The second part of the prophecy is distinguished by the words,
“ And it shall come to pass afterward ” (|3"nns nvn), a formula which
*An eyewitness of a plague of locusts, which visited Palestine in 1866, says:
“ From early morning till near sunset the locusts passed over the city in countless
hosts, as though all the swarms in the world were let loose, and the w'hirl of their
wings was as the sound of chariots. At times they appeared in the air like some
great snowdrift, obscuring the sun, and casting a shadow upon the earth. Men stood
in the streets and looked up, and their faces gathered blackness. At intervals those
which were tired or hungry descended on the little gardens in the city, and in an in¬
credibly short time all that was green disappeared. They ran up the walls, they
sought out every blade of grass or weed growing between the stones, and after eat¬
ing to satiety, they gathered in their ranks along the ground, or on the tops of the
houses. It is no marvel that as Pharaoh looked at them he called them ‘ this death ’
(Exod. x, 17). . . . One locust has been found near Bethlehem measuring more than
five inches in length. It is covered with a hard shell, and has a tail like a scorpion.”
— Journal of Sacred Literature for 1866, p. 89. Compare the same Journal for
1865, pp. 235-237.
BIBLICAL. HERMENEUTICS.
431
may be regarded as equivalent to D'DJii nnn&ttl, in the end of the days, ,
or, in the last days.
1* ^ap. 28-32 (Hebrew text, chap. iii). In accordance with
the prayer of Moses (Num. xi, 29), Jehovah promises a great out¬
pouring of his Spirit upon all the people, so that all will become
prophets. This token of grace is followed by wonders in heaven
and earth (D’npto, prodigious signs , like the plagues of Egypt):
And I will give wonders in the heavens and in the land,
Blood, and fire, and columns of smoke;
The sun shall be turned to darkness,
And the moon to blood,
Before the coming of the day of Jehovah —
The great and the terrible.
And it shall come to pass that all who call upon the name
of Jehovah shall be saved.
For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance,
As Jehovah has said,
And in the remnant whom Jehovah calls.
2. Chap, iii, 1-17 (Heb. iv, 1—17). The great day of Jehovah will
issue in a judgment of all nations (comp. Matt, xxv, 31-46). Like
the combined armies of Moab, Ammon, and Seir, which came against
Judah and Jerusalem in the time of Jehoshaphat, the hostile nations
shall be brought down into “a valley of Jehoshaphat” (verses 2,
12), and there be recompensed according as they had recompensed
Jehovah and his people (comp. Matt, xxv, 41-46).
Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of judgment!
For near is the day of Jehovah,
In the valley of judgment (ver. 14).
Jehovah, who dwells in Zion, will make that valley — a valley of
judgment to his enemies — like another valley of blessing to his
people. Comp. 2 Chron. xx, 20-26.
3. Chap, iii, 18-21 (Heb. iv, 18-21). The judgment of the na¬
tions shall be followed by a perpetual peace and glory like the
composure and rest which God gave the realm of Jehoshaphat
(2 Chron. xx, 30). The figures of great plenty, the flowing waters,
the fountain proceeding from the house of Jehovah, Judah and
Jerusalem abiding forever, and “Jehovah dwelling in Zion,” are
in substance equivalent to the closing chapters of Ezekiel and John.
Thus this oldest Apocalypse virtually assumes a sevenfold struc¬
ture, and repeats its revelations in various forms. The first four
sections refer to a day of Jehovah near at hand, an impending
432
PRINCIPLES OF
judgment, of which the locust scourge had, perhaps, already ap¬
peared as the beginning of sorrows; the last three stand
a generic Apoc- out in the more distant future (afterward **** the last
aiypse. days, Acts ^ ^ The anusions of the book to events
of the reign of Jehoshaphat have led most critics to believe that
Joel prophesied soon after the days of that monarch, but beyond
those allusions this ancient prophet is unknown. The absence of any
thing to determine his historical standpoint, and the tar-reaching
import of his words, render his oracles a kind of generic prophecy
capable of manifold applications.
Ezekiel’s Visions.
The numerous parallels between the Book of Ezekiel and the
Peculiarities of Revelation of John have arrested the attention of all
Ezekiel. readers.1 But the number and extent of Ezekiel’s proph¬
ecies carry him over a broader field than that of any other apoca¬
lyptic seer, so that he combines vision, symbolico-typical action,
parable, allegory, and formal prophesying. “ Ezekiel’s style of
prophetic representation,” says Keil, “has many peculiarities. In
the first place the clothing of symbol and allegory prevails in him
to a greater degree than in all the other prophets; and his symbol¬
ism and allegory are not confined to general outlines and pictures,
but elaborated in the minutest details, so as to present figures of a
boldness surpassing reality, and ideal representations, wdiich pro¬
duce an impression of imposing grandeur and exuberant fulness.2
Ezekiel’s prophecies, like Joel’s, may be divided into two parts:
Analysis of (°hapters i-xxxii) announcing Jehovah’s judg-
Ezekiei’s proph- ments upon Israel and the heathen nations; the second
(chapters xxxiii-xlviii) announcing the restoration and
final glorification of Israel. The first part, however, is not without
gracious words of promise (xi, 13-20; xvii, 22-24), and the second
contains the fearful judgment of God (xxxvii, xxxviii) after the man¬
ner of the judgment of all nations described in the second part of
Joel (iii, 2-14). The first part of Ezekiel may be subdivided into
seven sections, the second part into three, as follows:
1. Chapters i-iii, 14. The opening vision is threefold, consist-
The opening i ng of the living creatures, the wheels, and the throne
vision. 0f Jehovah. The symbolic parts of this vision embody
the substance of all the subsequent prophecies. The fourfold wheel,
like the horsemen, the horns, the smiths, and the chariots in Zech.
1 See a list of parallels between Ezekiel, Daniel, Zechariah, and John in the Speak¬
er’s Commentary on Ezekiel, pp. 12-16.
2 Biblical Commentary on the Prophecies of Ezekiel, vol. i, p. 9. Edinb., 1876.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
433
i, 10, 19, 21; vi, 5, and the four horses and their riders in Rev. vi,
2-8, represent the potent agencies 6f divine judgment. Whether
these go forth against rebellious Israel or against the heathen, they
move at the will and command of the cherubim. So in Rev. vi,
the symbols of conquest, bloodshed, famine, and aggravated mor¬
tality proceed on their solemn mission only as the cherubim say
Come. Here is a profound intimation that all things work together
for good to them who love God, and who are, accordingly* predes¬
tined to be conformed to the image of his Son, and to be sanctified
in his glory (Rom. viii, 28-30; comp. Exod. xxix, 43). For if the
cherubim are prophetic symbols of redeemed and glorified human¬
ity (see above, p. 363) this vision suggests that every agency of
providence or judgment in all the world moves with a foreseen
(7 rpoeyva), Rom. viii, 29; xi, 2; comp. 1 Peter i, 1, 2) vital relation
to the ultimate glory of God’s elect. The vision was followed by
the divine call and commission of the prophet.
2. Chapters iii, 15-vii describe the further commission of the
prophet, and contain his first series of symbolico-tvpical and orac¬
ular announcements of the approaching woes and desolation of
Jerusalem.
3. Chapters viii-xi. The prophet is carried in vision to Jerusa¬
lem, and there beholds a fourfold picture of the idolatrous abomi¬
nations which constituted Judah’s guilt and shame. This vision
was followed by that of the seven angels, six of whom were com¬
manded to go through the city and smite all wTho had not the mark
of God upon their foreheads (comp. Rev. vii, 3; ix, 4, and the seven
trumpet angels of Rev. viii, 2). One of the angels takes fire from
between the wheels under the cherubim, and scatters it over the
city (comp. Rev. Viii, 5), after which the cherubim depart from the
temple and the city, and with it that series of visions ends (xi, 24).
4. Chapters xii-xix belong to the cycle of prophecies which are
dated in the sixth year (viii, 1), but the standpoint of the prophet
is changed, and he appears among the captives in Chaldsea, and by
symbolico-typical action, allegory, parable, lamentation, and vaii-
ous expostulation and warning he exhibits the sins of Israel, and
shows that rebellion against God is sure to bring misery and de¬
struction upon the transgressors.
5. Chapters xx-xxiii contain the prophecies of the seventh year,
and repeat in other words and figures the catalogue of Israel’s sins.
“ The same subject is continued,” says Fairbairn, “ though, as the
time of judgment had approached nearer, there is an increased
keenness and severity in the prophet’s tone; he sits, as it were, in
judgment upon the people, brings out in full form the divine
28
434
PRINCIPLES OF
indictment against them, and with awful distinctness and frequent
reiteration announces both their consummate guilt and its appro¬
priate judgment.” 1
6. Chap, xxiv bears the date of the memorable day on which
Nebuchadnezzar commenced the siege of Jerusalem, and under the
figure of a boiling pot depicts the fearful ruin that was then about
to fall upon the city. In the evening of that day the prophet’s
wife, the desire of his eyes, was removed by death, and he was
commanded not to mourn or weep, that he might be a sign to Israel
of a grief too deep for tears (comp. Jer. xvi, 4-6).
7. Chapters xxv-xxxii are a series of seven oracles2 against so
many different heathen nations, namely, ( 1 ) the Ammonites, (2) Moab,
(3) Edom, (4) the Philistines, (5) Tyre, (6) Sidon, and (7) Egypt.
“ These seven nations,” observes Currey, “are all mentioned by Jer¬
emiah (xxv, 15-32) as bidden to drink of the cup of the fury of the
Lord; for five of them (Egypt and Philistia being excepted) Jere¬
miah was to make bonds and yokes (Jer. xxvii, 3). In prophesying
against foreign nations the more recent prophets often adopt the
language of those who preceded them.” 3
The second part of Ezekiel’s prophecies is full of consolation and
hope for the house of Israel. As in the opening vision, the dark
cloud out of the north had a circle of brightness about it (i, 4), and
the fiery human likeness of the glory of Jehovah was encompassed
by the appearance of a rainbow (i, 28), so the punitive judgments
of God, if not themselves blessings in disguise, are compassed with
radiations of divine mercy, and are the agencies of holy love which
either chastens to reform, or punishes with death to secure the final
peace and glory of Messiah’s kingdom.
1. Chapters xxxiii— xxxvii abound in consolation and hope for the
Prophecies of chosen people. After the renewal of the prophet’s
restoration. charge, which occurred on the day in which he heard
of the fall of Jerusalem (xxxiii, 21), the word of Jehovah through
him announces the restoration of Israel in six different forms,
(l) As an offset to the work of the unfaithful shepherds who had
caused the flock to be scattered abroad, Jehovah, like a good shep¬
herd, will seek his scattered sheep, and lead them into rich pastures
Ezekiel and the Book of his Prophecy, p. 14. Edinburgh, 1855.
2 These oracles against the seven nations are, perhaps, sufficiently distinct to be re¬
garded as a leading section by themselves. In that case we should subdivide the first
half of Ezekiel’s prophecies into two leading parts, the first (chapters i-xxiv) against
idolatrous Israel, consisting of six subdivisions as above, the second (chapters xxv-
xxxii) against the heathen, and consisting of seven subdivisions.
8 Speaker’s Commentary on Ezekiel, p. 106.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
435
upon the mountains of Israel (chap, xxxiv). (2) As an offset to the
evils Israel suffered from the surrounding nations, the doom of
Edom is foretold as a specimen of the manner in which Jehovah
will avenge his people on their heartless enemies (chap. xxxv).
(3) As an offset to the prophecy against the mountains of Israel, in
chap, vi, 1-7, there now comes a promise to restore and beautify all
that was laid waste (xxxvi, 1—15). (4) Thereupon follows the pledge
of multiplied blessings to be showered upon the restored house of
Israel (xxxvi, 16—38), and the section closes with the two svmbol-
ical signs (5) of the resurrection of dry bones (xxxvii, 1-14), and
(6) of the two rods of wood (ft*) which represented the divided
kingdoms of Israel and Judah (xxxvii, 15-28). These symbols
declared that Israel’s restoration should be as life from the dead,
and should result in their becoming one nation again upon the
mountains of Israel.
2. Chapters xxxviii and xxxix contain the great apocalyptic pic-
The battle of ture of the last conflict of the world with God. This
Gog- section has four subdivisions: (1) The gathering of the
army of Gog and their march against Israel (xxxviii, 1-13); (2) His
fearful overthrow by the power of God (verses 14-23); (3) Another
portraiture of the utter destruction of all the multitudes of Gog
xxxix, 1-16); (4) The issue of this final victory in the sanctifica¬
tion and glory of the house of Israel (verses 17-29). On this mys¬
terious prophecy Currey appropriately remarks: “ We must bear in
mind that Ezekiel is not predicting the invasion of an actual army,
but the advance of evil under that figure. So he declares the over¬
throw of evil by the figure of a host routed and slain, and the con¬
sequent purification of a land partially overrun and disturbed. It
is the manner of Ezekiel to dwell upon the details of the figurative
acts which he portrays, bringing them before the mind as vivid
pictures, and employing, so to speak, the strongest colouring. This
has led some so to rest on the picture as to forget that it is a figure.
Thus they have searched history to find out some campaign in the
land of Israel, some overthrow of invaders, on which to fix this
prophecy, and have assigned localities to the burial place, and even
thought to discover the spot to which belongs the appellation
Hamon-Gog. But in truth the details are set forth in order to
carry out the allegory, and their very extravagance, so to speak,
points out that we have but the shadow of a great spiritual real¬
ity which man can only faintly represent and feebly grasp in a
figure.” 1
(3) Chapters xl-xlviii contain an elaborate vision of the kingdom
Speaker’s Commentary on Ezekiel, p. 158.
486
PRINCIPLES OF
of God, and is the Old Testament counterpart of the new heaven
and new land portrayed in Rev. xxi and xxii. Ezekiel
pie? land, and is carried in the visions of God to a very high moun-
city- tain in the land of Israel (xl, 2; comp. Rev. xxi, 10) and
sees a new temple, new ordinances of worship, a river of waters of
life, new land and new tribal divisions, and a new city named Je-
hovah-shammah. The minuteness of detail is characteristic of
Ezekiel, and no one would so naturally have portrayed the Messi¬
anic times under the imagery of a glorified Judaism as a prophet
who was himself a priest. From his historical standpoint, as an
exile by the rivers of Babylon, smitten with grief as he remembered
Zion, and the ruined city and temple, and the desolated land of
Canaan (comp. Psa. cxxxvii), no ideal of restoration and glory could
be more attractive and pleasing than that of a perfect temple, a
continual service, a holy priesthood, a restored city, and a land com¬
pletely occupied and watered by a never-failing river that would
make the deserts blossom as the rose.
Three different interpretations, of these closing chapters of Eze-
interpretation kiel have been maintained. (1) The first regards this
vision of °Eztf description of the temple as a model of the temple of
Mei. Solomon which was destroyed by the Chald leans. The
advocates of this view suppose that the prophet designed this pat¬
tern to serve in the rebuilding of the house of God after the return
of the Jews from their exile. (2) Another class of interpreters hold
that this whole passage is a literal prophecy of the final restoration
of the Jews. At the second coming of Christ all Israel will be gath¬
ered out from among the nations, become established in their an¬
cient land of promise, rebuild their temple after this glorious model,
and dwell in tribal divisions according to the literal statements of
this prophecy. (3) That exposition which has been maintained
probably by the majority of evangelical divines may be called the
figurative or symbolico-typical. The vision is a Levitico-prophetic
picture of the New Testament Church or kingdom of God. Its
general import is thus set forth by Keil: “The tribes of Israel
which receive Canaan for a perpetual possession are not the Jewish
people converted to Christ, but the Israel of God, i. e., the people
of God of the new covenant gathered from among both Jews and
Gentiles; and that Canaan in which they are to dwell is not the
earthly Canaan or Palestine between the Jordan and the Mediterra¬
nean Sea, but the New Testament Canaan, the territory of the
kingdom of God, whose boundaries reach from sea to sea, and from
the river to the ends of the earth. And the temple upon a very
high mountain in the midst of this Canaan in which the Lord is
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
437
enthroned, and causes the river of the water of life to flow down
from his throne over his kingdom, so that the earth produces the
tree of life with leaves as medicine for men, and the Dead Sea is
filled with fishes and living creatures, is a figurative representation
and type of the gracious presence of the Lord in his Church, which
is realized, in the present period of the earthly development of the
kingdom of heaven, in the form of the Christian Church, in a spir¬
itual and invisible manner, in the indwelling of the Father and the
Son through the Holy Spirit in the hearts of believers, and in a
spiritual and invisible operation in the Church, but which will
eventually manifest itself when our Lord shall appear in the glory
of the Father to translate his Church into the kingdom of glory in
such a manner that we shall see the Almighty God and the Lamb
with the eyes of our glorified body, and worship before his throne.” 1
This symbolico-typical interpretation recognizes a harmony of
Ezekiel’s method and style with other apocalyptic representations
of the kingdom of heaven, and finds in this fact a strong argument
in its favour. The measurements recorded, the ideal character of
the tribe divisions, and especially the river of healing waters flow¬
ing from the threshold of the temple into the eastern sea, are insu¬
perable difficulties in the way of any literal exposition of the vision.
The modern chiliastic notion of a future return of the Jews to Pal¬
estine, and a revival of the Old Testament sacrificial worship, is
opposed to the entire genius and spirit of the Gospel dispensation.2
The illustrations now given of the artistic structure of Old Test¬
ament apocalyptics should be kept in mind and utilized Artistic struo-
in the study of the eschatological portions of the New }yp®ic°f to^be
Testament. The habit of repeating prophetic pictures, noted,
like Pharaoh’s dreams and Daniel’s visions, under various forms,
the abundance of imagery, and the highly metaphorical style of
predictions of falling empires, should be particularly studied. A
failure to observe these formal elements has been one chief cause
of the numerous conflicting expositions of this class of Scriptures.
That certainly would be an untrustworthy method which, in the
interpretation of the New Testament, insists on the literal import
of language which, in the Old Testament, is authoritatively shown
to be figurative.
1 Biblical Commentary on the Prophecies of Ezekiel, vol. ii, p. 425. Edinb., 1878.
2 For extended arguments in favour of the symbolico-typical, and against the literai,
interpretation of Ezek. xl-xlviii, see the commentaries on this prophet by Fairbain,
Schroeder, Cowles, and Currey.
438
PRINCIPLES OP
CHAPTER XXIV.
THE GOSPEL APOCALYPSE.
Our Lord’s eschatological discourse in Matt, xxiv (and the parallel
passages of Mark and Luke) may be appropriately called the apoca¬
lypse of the Gospels.1 It was uttered in connexion with
sus’ apocaiyp- his terrible denunciation of J erusalem, the murderess
tic discourse. 0£ pr0phetg (Matt, xxiii, 34-39). The disciples were
awestruck by his words, and as he took his departure from the
temple they called his attention to the magnificent buildings and
great stones ; but this only drew from him the further remark :
“ Days will come, in which there shall not be left stone upon stone
here, which shall not be thrown down” (Luke xxi, 6). He passed
out of the city, and sat down upon the Mount of Olives opposite
the temple, when four of the disciples (Peter, James, John, and
Andrew) asked him privately (Mark xiii, 3, 4) : “ Tell us when
these things shall be, and what the sign when these, things are all
about to be accomplished?” Luke (xxi, 7) records their inquiry in
nearly the same words, but according to Matthew (xxiv, 3) they
asked: “Tell us when these things shall be, and what is the sign
of thy coming (rrjg or\q nagovolag) and of the completion of the
age ” ( ovvreXeiag rov aluvos) ? Let it be noted, then, that our Lord’s
apocalyptic sermon on the Mount of Olives was in answer to this
question of his disciples, and with explicit reference to the over¬
throw of the temple and the fall of Jerusalem.
But although the occasion and scope of this discourse are so
clearly defined, and our Lord himself declared emphatically, in an¬
swer to the disciples’ question, “This generation shall not pass
away until all these things be accomplished ” (Matt, xxiv, 34 ; Mark
various opin- xiiij 30; Luke xxi, 32 ; comp. Matt, xvi, 28; Mark ix, 1 ;
ions. Luke ix, 27), a large number of expositors insist that
even now, after a lapse of nearly two thousand years, the prophecy
1 This designation is justified by the subject matter of the discourse, and its formal
reference to his coming and the end of the age. But it lacks some of the formal
elements of biblical apocalyptics, and for the obvious reason that it became this
Teacher and Prophet from heaven to speak unlike those who received their revela¬
tions by vision or dream. So far, however, as he uses the tone and style of apoca¬
lyptic prophecy, we should interpret his language by the same hermeneutical principles
which we apply to other revelations.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
439
remains in great part unfulfilled. It is quite generally admitted
that Matt, xxiv, 1-28 refers to the fall of Jerusalem, but the lan¬
guage of verses 29-31 is supposed to be incompatible with that
event, and to refer to a future literal coming of Christ in the clouds
of heaven. Some, however, find the transition from the destruction
of Jerusalem to the end of the world at verse 35 (E. J. Meyer),
others at verse 36 (Doddridge), others at verse 43 (Kuinoel), while
otheis find it in chap, xxv, 14 (Richhorn), and others in chap, xxv, 31
(Wetstein).1 Another class of interpreters (Stier, Alford) apply
the theory of a double sense to the whole chapter, and teach that
our Lord referred primarily to the destruction of Jerusalem, but
only as to a type of the end of the world and the final judgment.
“ Two parallel interpretations,” says Alford, “ run through the for¬
mer part as far as verse 28, the destruction of Jerusalem and the
final judgment being both enwrapped in the words, but the former,
in this part of the chapter, predominating. From verse 28, the lesser
subject begins to be swallowed up by the greater, and our Lord’s
second coming is the predominant theme, with, however, certain
hints thrown back as it were at the event which was immedi¬
ately in question; till, in the latter part of the chapter, and the
whole of the next, the second advent, and at last the final judgment
ensuing on it, are the subjects.” a
Lange’s outline of this sublime prophecy of our Lord is as fol¬
lows : “ In harmony with apocalyptical style, he exhib-
sed the judgments of his coming in a series of cycles, sis of chapters
each of which depicts the whole futurity, but in such a XX1V and xxv'
manner that with every new cycle the scene seems to approximate
to and more closely resemble the final catastrophe. Thus, the first
cycle delineates the whole course of the world down to the end, in
its general characteristics (chap, xxiv, 4-14). The second gives the
signs of the approaching destruction of Jerusalem, and paints this
destruction itself as a sign and a commencement of the judgment
of the world, which from that day onward proceeds in silent and
suppressed days of judgment down to the last (vers. 15-28). The
1 The position taken by some that it was one great purpose of Jesus, in answering
his disciples’ question, to warn them against confounding Jerusalem’s destruction
with the end of the world can scarcely be made out of a strict interpretation of
our Lord’s words. He clearly warned them against deceivers and false Christs
who would appear before the end. But we can find no word or sentence which
appears designed to impress any one with the idea that the destruction in question
and the parousia would be far separate as to time. The one, it is said, will im¬
mediately follow the other, and all will take place before that generation shall pass
away.
2 Greek Testament on Matt, xxiv, 1, 2.
440
PRINCIPLES OF
third describes the sudden end of the world, and the judgment
which ensues (vers. 29-44). 1 Then follows a series of parables and
similitudes, in which the Lord paints the judgment itself, which
unfolds itself in an organic succession of several acts. In the last
act Christ reveals his universal judicial majesty. Chap, xxiv, 45-51,
exhibits the judgment upon the servants of Christ, or the clergy.
Chap, xxv, 1-13, (the wise and foolish virgins) exhibits the judg¬
ment upon the Church, or the people. Then follows the judgment
upon individual members of the Church (14-30). Finally, verses
31-46 introduce the universal judgment of the world.”2
In view of the various opinions of this important prophecy one
may well approach the investigation of it with great reserve. All
dogmatic assumptions and prepossessions should be set aside, and
the entire passage should be studied with strict regard to the con¬
text, scope, and plan.
The prophecy, as we have seen, was uttered in reply to the
The question of question of the disciples, as given in Matt, xxiv, 3,
the disciples. Mark xiii, 4, and Luke xxi, 7. The form of the ques¬
tion as stated by Matthew has apparently a threefold implication,
touching, respectively, the time of those things, the sign of the
parousia, and the end of the age (see above, p. 438). But is this
sufficient to warrant an expectation of finding in our Lord’s answer
a triple division, each referring to a different event, or authorizing
a threefold meaning in his words? Or if we regard the question as
twofold, is it of a nature to authorize the theory of a double sense,
or of two parallel interpretations enwrapped in one and the same
passage? Much more reasonable, we submit, is the supposition
that, when the disciples made their inquiry, they had no clearly
defined outline of the future in their minds. “ They obviously had
not,” says Robinson, “ at the time, any definite and distinct notions
of that terrible overthrow and subversion of the Jewish people
which was so soon to take place. They were also equally ignorant
in respect to the awful events which are to be the accompaniments
of the day of judgment and the end of the world. We cannot sup¬
pose nor admit that the inquiry, as Matthew puts it, suggested to
1 According to Nast we may “take what is said of the coming of Christ, in versec.
29-36, figuratively, and understand by it a judicial visitation of nominal Christendom
by Christ, in order' to destroy all ungodly institutions and principles in Church and
State, of which (providential) visitation the overthrow of the Jewish polity was but a
type, and which itself is, in turn, the full type of the final and total overthrow of all
powers of darkness on the great day of judgment.”— Commentary on Matthew and
Mark, p. 538. Cincinnati, 1864. This writer’s entire discussion of Matt, xxiv, is
worthy of study for its helpful suggestions.
2 Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Amer. ed., 1864), p. 418.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
441
their minds the same ideas, nor events of the same character, as the
same language, taken by itself, would now suggest to us under the
full light of a completed revelation.” 1 Any assumptions, therefore,
built upon the threefold form of the disciples’ question, will be
liable to mislead.
It is also important that, in this and other Scriptures which speak
of the ovvteXelcl rov aiuvog, consummation, , or comple- The end of the
tion of the age , we disabuse our minds of the mislead- aee-
ing impression begotten by the common translation, “ end of the
world.” A misinterpretation of this phrase is the root of many
false assumptions. “ It is not surprising that mere English readers
of the New Testament should suppose that this phrase really means
the destruction of the material earth ; but such an error ought not
to receive countenance from men of learning. The true significa¬
tion of al&v is not world , but age. Like its Latin equivalent aevumy
it refers to a period of time. The ‘end of the age’ means the close
of the epoch or age — that is, the J ewish age or dispensation which
was drawing nigh, as our Lord frequently intimated. All those
passages which speak of ‘the end,’ ‘the end of the age,’ or ‘the
ends of the ages,’ refer to the same consummation, and always as
nigh at hand. In 1 Cor. x, 11, St. Paul says, ‘The ends of the ages
have stretched out to us;’ implying that he regarded himself and
his readers as living near the conclusion of an aeon, or age. So, in
the Epistle to the Hebrews, we find the remarkable expression,
‘Now, once, close upon the end of the ages, hath he appeared to
put away sin by the sacrifice of himself’ (Ileb. ix, 26); clearly
showing that the writer regarded the incarnation of Christ as tak¬
ing place near the end of the aeon, or dispensational period. To
suppose that he meant that it was close upon the end of the world ,
or the destruction of the material globe, would be to make him
write false history as well as bad grammar. It would not be true
in fact ; for the world has already lasted longer since the incarna¬
tion than the whole duration of the Mosaic economy, from the
exodus to the destruction of the temple. It is futile, therefore,
to say that the ‘end of the age’ may mean a lengthened period,
1 Bibliotheca Sacra of 1843, p. 533. “The disciples assume, as a matter of course,”
says Meyer, “that immediately after the destruction in question the Lord will appear,
in accordance with what is said xxiii, 39, for the purpose of setting up his kingdom,
and that with this the current (pre-Messianic) era of the world’s history will come to
an end. Consequently they wish to know, in the second place (for there are only two
questions, not three, as Grotius and Ebrard suppose), what is to be the sign which,
after the destruction of the temple, is to precede this second coming and the end of
the world, that by it they may be able to recognize the approach of those events.” —
Critical Commentary on Matthew xxiv, 3.
442
PRINCIPLES OF
extending from the incarnation to our times, and even far beyond
them. That would be an aeon, and not the close of an aeon. The
aeon of which our Lord was speaking was about to close in a great
catastrophe; and a catastrophe is not a protracted process, but a
definitive and culminating act.” 1
A study of the contents and scope of Matt, xxiv-xxv will be
Analysis of the &reatty aided by a discriminating analytical outline of
Gospel Apoca^ the subject-matter. Lange’s “ series of cycles ” given
lypse' above (pp. 439, 440) is suggestive, and designates the
more noticeable points of transition in the course of the prophecy.
It also recognizes its apocalyptical character. But the notion that
“ each cycle depicts the whole futurity ” is without warrant in the
language of our Lord. The following is a condensed summary of
the principal statements:
I.
1 There will be false Christs and a great apostacy, verses 4, 5.
2 There will be wars, rumours of wars, famines, and earthquakes, 6, 7.
3 You will suffer persecution and martyrdom, 9.
4 Great offences, betrayals, and feuds, 10.
5 Many false prophets, great wickedness, and apostacy, 11, 12.
6 The Gospel will be preached in all the world, 13, 14.
7 Then comes the end, 14.
II.
1 The abomination of desolation, 15.
2 The flight to the mountains, 16-20.
3 The great tribulation, 21, 22.
4 Warnings against false Christs and false prophets, 23-26.
5 The parousia like the lightning-flash, 27.
6 Eagles will gather on the carcass, 28.
III.
1 Darkening and shaking of sun, moon, and stars immediately after the
great tribulation, 29.
2 The sign of the Son of man in the clouds, 30.
3 The sending forth of trumpet angels and gathering of the elect, 31.
IY.
1 The similitude of the fig-tree, 32, 33.
2 All these things within this generation, 34.
3 Infallible certainty of Jesus’ words, 35.
1 The Parousia. A Critical Inquiry into the New Testament Doctrine of our Lord’s
Second Coming, pp. 58, 59. Lond., 1878. Meyer says, “ The tov aluvoc (the age), with
the article, but not further defined, is to be understood as referring to the existing,
the then current, age of the world, i. e., to the aldv oItoq (this age), which is brought
to a close (a vv refold) with the second coming, inasmuch as, with this latter event, the
aidv fieMuv (coming age) begins.”— Commentary on Matthew xxiv, 3.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
44a
4 The day and hour unknown, verse 36.
5 It will be as the flood in Noah’s days, 37-39.
6 Sudden separations, 40-41.
7 Admonition to watch, 42-51.
The twenty-fifth chapter readily falls into three parts, (1) the
parable of the ten virgins (verses 1-13), (2) the parable A sevenfcid
of the talents (14-30), and (3) the prophecy of eternal structure,
judgment (31-46). The entire discourse, as given in Matthew, thus
manifests a sevenfold structure, and a comparison of these several
parts with our analysis of the words of Joel (see above, pp. 429—
431) will disclose many noticeable analogies.
The principles of grammatico-historical interpretation require
our close attention to the specific time-limitations of
• t rryi . A Time-I i m i t a-
tms prophecy, the entire discourse appears to have tions of tnis
grown out of Jesus’ declaration: “The days will come prophecy-
in which there shall not be left stone upon stone here which shall
not be thrown down ” (Luke xxi, 6 ; comp. Matt, xxiv, 2 ; Mark
xiii, 2). These words, especially, occasioned the disciples’ ques¬
tion: “When shall these things be?” The whole prophecy pur¬
ports to be an answer to that question, and no affirmation in it is
more emphatic than the words: “ Yerily I say unto you, This gener¬
ation shall not pass away till all these things be accomplished”
(Matt, xxiv, 34; Mark xiii, 30; Luke xxi, 32). On what valid her¬
meneutical principles, then, can it be fairly claimed that this dis¬
course of Jesus comprehends all futurity? Why should we look
for the revelations of far distant ages and millenniums of human
history in a prophecy expressly limited to the generation 1 in which
it was uttered?
It will be answered that the statements of Matt, xxiv, 14, and
Luke xxi, 24, and the style of language used in Matt, xxiv, 29-31,
1 The significations which, apparently under the pressure of an assumed exeget-
ical necessity, have been put upon the words rj yevea avrr], this generation , may
well seem absurd to the unbiassed critic. To put upon them such meanings as “ the
human race ” (Jerome), or “ the Jewish race ” (Clarke, Dorner, Auberlen), or “ the
race of Christian believers ” (Chrysostom, Lange), may reasonably be condemned as
a reading whatever suits our purpose into the words of Scripture. The evident
meaning of the word is seen in such texts as Matt, i, 17; xvii, 17 ; Acts xiv, 16; xv,
21 (by-gone generations, generations of old), and nothing in New Testament exegesis
is capable of more convincing proof than that yevea is the Greek equivalent of our
word generation ; i. e., the mass or great body of people living at one period— the
period of average lifetime. Even if it be allowed that in such passages as Matt, xi,
16, or Luke xvi, 8, the thought of a particular race or class of people is implied, it is
beyond doubt that in those same passages the persons referred to are conceived as
contemporaries.
444
PRINCIPLES OF
and xxv, 31-46, are incompatible with the time-limitations desig¬
nated above. A careful study of these passages, however, in the
light of other apocalyptic Scriptures, will serve to show that they
do not warrant the dogmatic construction which many interpreters
have put upon them.1
1. The preaching of the Gospel of the kingdom “in the whole
import of Matt, world for a testimony unto all the nations” (Matt,
xxiv, 14. xxiv, 14) must precede the end, and therefore, it is
argued, the end here contemplated must be in the far future, after
all nations have been evangelized. But a comparison of Luke ii, 1,
shows that all this same world (oIkov/ievt]) was enrolled by a decree
of Caesar. In Col. i, 6, 23, the Gospel is said to be “ bearing fruit
in all the world ” ( kv navrl to 5 noofi oj), and to be “ preached in all
creation under the heaven.” The Gospel, therefore, uttered its
testimony to all the nations of this same world before the ruin of
the temple and the end of the Jewish aeon.
1 Godet (Commentary on Luke xxi, 5-7) affirms that Matt, xxiv is a confused mix¬
ture of at least two distinct discourses of Jesus, and, he argues, “Jesus could not
affirm here what he elsewhere declares that he did not know ” (Mark xiii, 32). In
this statement Godet, like many others, makes no distinction between a day and an
hour , and the period of a generation. Might one not have assurance that momentous
events would take place within a generation (i. e., forty or fifty years) and yet not
know the day or the hour ? Moreover, the hypothesis of a confused report of Jesus’
words involves a loose doctrine of inspiration, and virtually makes it the work of the
exegete to correct the mistakes of the apostles. Godet proceeds: “While he an¬
nounces the destruction of Jerusalem as an event to be witnessed by the contem¬
porary generation, he speaks of the parousia as one which is possibly yet very re¬
mote. Consider the expression days will come (Luke xvii, 22) [but why assume that
these days must be very remote ? The full import of the words would be satisfied if
the days came within ten years], and the parable of the widow, the meaning of
which is that God will seem to the Church an unjust judge, who, for a protracted
time , refuses to hear her [but the time need not be protracted forty years to seem
very long to those who cry day and night — much less need it be protracted thousands
of years !], so that during this time of waiting the faith of many shall give way
(Luke xviii, 1—8) [but was it not possible for the faith of many to give way during
that generation as well as in any subsequent generation?]. The Master is to
return ; but, perhaps, it will not be till the second or the third watch , or even till
the morning , that he will come (Mark xiii, 35 ; Luke xii, 38) [and, forsooth, no sec¬
ond, third, or fourth watch of any day or night within forty years after these words
were spoken, could fulfil this saying!]. The great distance at which the capital
lies (Luke xix, 12) can signify nothing else than the considerable space of time
which will elapse between the departure of Jesus and his return.” But one genera¬
tion would seem to be time enough for this ; few noblemen would expect a longer
period for such a work ! Far less time would probably be necessary for the Son of
man to go through the clouds to the Ancient of days and receive from him a kingdom
(Dan. vii, 13, 14), and return to supplant Judaism and her rule by a more spiritual
dominion.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
445
2. The statement in Luke xxi, 24, that “Jerusalem shall be trod¬
den down by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles importofLuke
be fulfilled,” is supposed to involve events which did xxi, 24.
not take place in that generation. The “ times of the Gentiles ”
( iccuQoi kOvGiv) are assumed to be the times and opportunities of
grace afforded to the Gentiles under the Gospel. But to under¬
stand the words in this sense would be, as Van Oosterzee observes,
to interpolate a thought entirely foreign to the context.1 “The
times of the Gentiles,” says Bengel, “ are the times allotted to the
Gentiles to tread down the city;” but there is nothing in the pas¬
sage or context to authorize his further remark that “ these times
shall be ended when the Gentiles’ conversion shall be fully con¬
summated,” 2 and that the treading down by Romans, Persians, Sara¬
cens, Franks, and Turks is to be understood. These Kaipoi are
manifestly times of judgment upon Jerusalem, not times of salva¬
tion to the Gentiles. The most natural and obvious parallel is Rev.
xi, 2, where the outer court of the temple is said to be “ given to
the Gentiles,” by whom the holy city shall be trodden down forty-
two months, a period equivalent to the “ time and times and half a
time” of Rev. xii, 14, and of Dan. vii, 25; xii, 7. This is a sym¬
bolical period of judgment (see above, p. 384), but does not de¬
note ages and generations. It is three and a half — a divided
seven, a short but signal period of woe. The “ times of the Gen¬
tiles,” therefore, are the three and a half times (approximating
three and a half years) during which the Gentile armies besieged
and trampled down Jerusalem.3
3. The language of Matt, xxiv, 29-31, has probably been the
principal reason for believing that this prophecy must import of Matt,
refer to other events than the destruction of J erusalem xxiv’ 29_31-
and the end of the Jewish dispensation. Pressing the literal sense
of the words, many interpreters have asked: When was the sun
thus darkened and the heavens shaken? Who ever saw the Son
of man thus coming in the clouds, or heard the loud-sounding
trumpet of this angels ? Or when did he thus gather his elect from
1 Commentary on Luke (Lange’s Biblework), in loco.
2 Gnomon of the New Testament on Luke xxi, 24. These “ times of the Gentiles ”
must not be Confounded with the “fulness of the Gentiles” in Rom. xi, 25.
3 Meyer explains the passage “ till the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled, as mean¬
ing “till the time that the periods which are appointed to the Gentiles for the com¬
pletion of divine judgments (not the period of grace for the Gentiles, as Ebrard foists
into the passage) shall have run out. Comp. Rev. xi, 2. Such times of the Gentiles
are ended in the case in question by the parousia (verses 25-27) which is to occur
during the lifetime of the hearers (ver. 28) ; hence those aaipoi are in no way to be
regarded as of longer duration.”— Critical Commentary, in loco.
446
PRINCIPLES OF
one end of heaven to the other ? If all this is figurative, where
shall we find a literal description of the final day?
To all which it may be answered: There is no valid reason for
Analogous presuming in advance that we should anywhere find a
prophecies. literal description of the last judgment. On the con¬
trary there is the analogy of prophecy, and especially of apocalyp¬
tic prophecy, to show that great catastrophes of divine judgment
are foretold mainly in figure and by symbol. The language of
Matt, xxiv, 29, is manifestly appropriated from such Scriptures as
Joel ii, 10, 31; Ezek. xxxii, 7, and Isa. xiii, 10.1 2 Our Lord made
use of the prophetical style familiar to every well-read Jew/ but
the extreme literalism maintained by modern Chiliasts would ut¬
terly destroy any rational exposition of such a passage as Isa.
xxxiv, 4, 5:
All the hosts of the heavens shall be melted,
And the heavens shall be rolled together as the scroll,
And all their host shall fall,
As falls a leaf from the vine,
And as a fallen fig from the fig-tree.
For my sword shall be sated in the heavens;
Behold upon Edom it shall come down,
And upon the people of my curse, for judgment.
When the leading Old Testament prophet makes use of such lan¬
guage in foretelling the desolation of Edom, with what reason or
propriety can we insist on the literal import of such passages as
Matt, xxiv, 29, and 2 Peter iii, 10.
The language of Matt, xxiv, 30, concerning “the Son of man com-
Language of ing in the clouds of the heaven with power and much
Matt, xxiv, so. glory/’ is taken from Daniel’s night vision (Dan. vii,
13) in which he saw the Son of man coming to the Ancient of days
and receiving from him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom. That
vision was a part of the composite symbol of world-empire, and
signified that “ the kingdom, and dominion, and the greatness of
the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people
of the saints of the Most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting
1 See the whole passage, Isa. xiii, 2-13, as translated on page 414 above, and used
to portray a great national catastrophe, the fall of Babylon.
2 “ There have been many interpreters,” says Planck, “ who knew nothing at all
of the local and temporary meaning of certain phrases and expressions in the Bible ;
to whom, in fact, it never once occurred that the early Jews could have attached
other ideas to certain forms of speech than those which the literal sense of the terms
expressed.” — Introduction to Sacred Philology and Interpretation, p. 146. Edinb.
(Bib. Cab.), 1834.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
447
kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him” (Dan, vii,
27). The kingdom received from the Ancient of days is no other
than the kingdom symbolized by the stone cut out of the mountain,
in chap, ii, 34, 35, which “became a great mountain and filled all
the land.” This is the kingdom of Messiah, which the Chiliasts be¬
lieve to be yet future, but which is more generally believed to be
the Gospel dispensation, a kingdom not of this world, and not inau¬
gurated with phenomenal splendour visible to mortal eyes. Like
the stone cut out of the mountain, and the mustard-seed, it is small
and comparatively unimportant at its beginning, but it grows so as
to fill the earth. This kingdom, according to Jesus’ own testimony
(Luke xvii, 20), “'comes not with observation;” that is, says Meyer,
“the coming of the Messiah’s kingdom is not so conditioned that
this coming could be observed as a visible development, or that it
could be said, in consequence of such observation, that here or there
is the kingdom.” 1 It may safely be affirmed, therefore, that this
language concerning the coming of the Son of man in the clouds
means no more on the lips of Jesus than in the writings of Daniel.
It denotes in both places a sublime and glorious reality, the grand¬
est event in human history, but not a visible display in the heavens
of such a nature as to be a matter of scenic observation. The Son
of man came in heavenly power to supplant Judaism by a better
covenant, and to make the kingdoms of the world his own, and that
parousia dates from the fall of Judaism and its temple. The
mourning of “ all the tribes of the land ” (not all the nations of the
globe) was coincident with the desolation of Zion, and our Lord
appropriately foretold it in language taken from Zech. xii, 11, 12.
The sending forth of the angels, and the gathering of the elect,
described in Matt, xxiv, 31, whatever its exact mean- imp0rtof Matt,
ing, does not necessarily depict a scenic procedure vis- xxiyi 31-
ible to human eyes.2 If understood literally, it may, nevertheless,
be only a verbal revelation of what took place in such a supernat¬
ural manner as that no man might behold it and remain alive. It
is said in verses 40 and 41 that at the parousia “two men shall be
1 Critical Commentary on Luke, in loco.
2 This verse has been understood, figuratively, of the sending forth of the messen¬
gers of the Gospel to gather unto Christ an elect Church in place of the outcast Israel.
In that sense it was a procedure which followed the parousia and still continues. So
Lightfoot: “ When Jerusalem shall be reduced to ashes, and this impious race shall
have been cut off and rejected, then the Son of man will send forth his ministers with
the Gospel trumpet, and they shall gather his elect among the Gentiles from the four
corners of heaven ; so that God will not be left without a Church, although his an¬
cient people be rejected and disowned.” — Horae Hebraicae on Matt, xxiv, 31. Thi9
explanation, however, will be accepted by very few.
448
PRINCIPLES OF
in the field; one is taken and one is left; two women shall be grind¬
ing at the mill; one is taken and one is left.” In such a miraculous
rapture of living saints (comp. 1 Thess. iv, 16, 17; 1 Cor. xv, 51,
52) the person left may not have been permitted to see the one
taken. It was a special favour to Elisha that he was enabled to
behold Elijah when the latter was caught up into heaven (2 Kings
ii, 9-12). A similar favour enabled Elisha’s servant to see the
mountain full of horses and chariots of fire (2 Kings vi, 17). Those
heavenly forces were truly present to execute Jehovah’s judgment,
though invisible to the eyes of men. At the resurrection of J esus
“ many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and
coming forth out of the tombs, they entered into the holy city, and
appeared unto many” (Matt, xxvii, 52, 53). But that wonderful
event was not made a phenomenon visible to the world. So, there
appears no sufficient reason for denying that at the judgment of Je¬
rusalem many other bodies of the saints which slept arose, and
many living saints were miraculously translated. Hence we may
not dogmatically conclude that any of the statements of Matt,
xxiv, 29-31 are inconsistent with the time-limits which Jesus so
positively set to this eschatological prophecy.
Whatever the events described in these verses, they are said to
Import Of follow “ immediately after the tribulation of those
ev&t:u>g, imme- days” (ver. 29). That tribulation is conceded to be
diateiy. the unparalleled sufferings referred to in verses 21 and
22 which were occasioned by the siege of Jerusalem. Josephus
observes that, in his judgment, the misfortunes of all men from the
beginning of time were comparatively of less magnitude than those
of the J ews in this fearful war.1 It is notable that great efforts have
been made by a number of expositors to escape the force and bearing
of the word evtieug, immediately. Some try to explain it as equiva¬
lent with suddenly , but this scarcely helps the case, for thus, says
Desprez, “ Matthew is taken to mean, £ When the tribulation of the
days in which J erusalem shall be destroyed shall have passed away,
then, after some indefinite interval, which may amount to myriads
of years, all of a sudden the great consummation will fall like a
thunderbolt upon mankind.’ To this the reply is— (1) that the in¬
terpretation is ungrammatical, and that if this be the meaning of the
words translated “ immediately ” (eudew^* tie), any words may be made
to mean any thing; (2) that the parallel passage in Mark (xiii, 24)
states distinctly that the signs of the final consummation shall be
seen in the very days which follow the former tribulation; and
(3) that Jesus himself is described as saying that every thing
1 Wavs of the Jews, Preface, 4.
BIBLICAL HEBMENEUTICS.
449
should be accomplished within the limits of the existing genera¬
tion.” 1
We are driven, then, by every sound principle of hermeneutics,
to conclude that Matt, xxiv, 29-31, must be included within the
time-limits of the discourse of which it forms an essential part, and
cannot be legitimately applied to events far separate from the final
catastrophe of the Jewish state.2
4. The description of the judgment of all nations in Matt, xxv,
31-46 is expressly associated with the coming of the The judgment
Son of man in liis glory. It is connected with the ?f a11 nati0?s’
preceding discourse by the particle de, and is, there- 46.
fore, not to be regarded as a distinct and independent prophecy.
Its tropical character, however, is apparent from its use of the terms
sheep and goats, and the scenic portraiture of the separation and
the judgment; but its doctrine manifestly involves the eternal des¬
tinies of the righteous and the wicked.
The apparent difficulty of connecting this picture of judgment
and eternal destiny with the ruin of Jerusalem will be „ , x J
. . J . Scriptural doc-
obviated by a more careful attention to the scriptural trine of Judg-
doctrine of divine judgment. We miss the full scrip- m'int*
tural idea of judgment rcptv gi, Kplmg) when we conceive
of it as confined to one last day, one formal rehearsal of every act
of human history before a tribunal in the heavens, at which the in¬
dividuals of all nations and ages shall be simultaneously assembled.
So far as this conception involves the fundamental idea that every
individual shall be brought into judgment before God, and that the
1 Daniel and John, p. 241. London, 1878. Wliedon explains the immediately, •
bv borrowing Luke xxi, 24 as a context. Assuming that the “times of the Gen¬
tiles ” are “ the period of the more exclusive Gentile churchdom,” he supposes,
that, subsequent to that period, the millennial ages will terminate in the “ tribulation
of those days,” immediately after which the final judgment will take place. All these
suppositions are based upon the assumption “ that we may be allowed to supply from
one evangelist the omissions by another of important passages, and allow the parts so*
supplied to modify the meaning of the context which they supplement.” — Commentary
on Matthew, p. 277. Facts or statements in one gospel may, indeed, help us to un¬
derstand facts and statements in another, but to appropriate a context from another
book is scarcely allowable to an interpreter.
2 The statement that “that day and hour” is unknown to any but the Father (Matt,
xxiv, 36; Mark xiii, 32; comp. Acts i, 7; 1 Thess. v, 1, 2; 2 Peter iii, 10) is not in
the least inconsistent with the assurance that a’.l will take place within a generation.
To pretend otherwise would be to accuse Jesus of solemn trifling, for it would involve
the absurd proposition: Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away
till all these things be accomplished ; nevertheless, that day and hour may be two
thousand years in the future. See the strictures on Godet’s comment, footnote to
page 444.
29
450
PRINCIPLES OF
issue of such judgment will be according to character and deeds,
it is warranted not only by numerous particular texts, but also
by the whole drift of Scripture teaching concerning the character
of God and his governmental relation to men. The mediatorial
reign of Christ may appropriately culminate in such a final upmg,
and this is the common belief of the Church. But nothing could
be more unscriptural than the notion that the judgment of nations
and of individuals is limited to one last day. It is a continual proc¬
ess, running through the Messianic era, and a necessary part of the
administration of the King of kings. Nations are continually un¬
dergoing signal judgment,1 and the eternal destinies of individuals
are being determined every day. And this is essentially the order
of Christ’s reign. He is enthroned at the right hand of God, and
must reign till he has overthrown all rival authority and power,
and has put all his enemies under his feet. One of the notable
features of the Messiah’s reign is that the Father commits all judg¬
ment unto the Son (John v, 22); he “gave him authority to execute
judgment, because he is the Son of man” (ver. 27). That is, he is
the Son of man described in the visions of Daniel who came with
the clouds of heaven and received of the Ancient of days a kingdom
and dominion over all nations (Dan. vii, 9-14). His regal office and
authority constitute him judge and ruler of all, and Matt, xxv,
31-4G is a vivid picture not merely of what will take place at the
end of time, but of what the Christ continually does from the time
of his session upon the throne of his glory until he shall have
delivered up the kingdom to the Father (1 Cor. xv, 2 4).
The judgment scene of Matt, xxv, 31-46, is, therefore, to be un¬
derstood of a divine procedure which has its formal inauguration
at the beginning of Messiah’s reign, and goes on with the progress
of the Messianic age. Accordingly it contains nothing inconsistent
with the time limitation of the prophecy of which it forms a part.
According to all these accounts the parousia of the Son of man
The Parousia was to coincident with the appalling catastrophe of
coincident Jerusalem and the Jewish polity. As the Mosaic polity
the Jewistfpo^- was instituted at Sinai when Jehovah came down upon,
ity and the end the mountain amid fire and smoke and earthquake and
the sound of a trumpet (Exod. xix, 16-20), so that polity
1 Hence the profound and far-reaching significance of that prophetic utterance of
Joel (see above, p. 431) which stands as a generic prophecy of divine judgment, and
has a thousandfold application in the history of men and nations :
Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of judgment 1
For near is the day of Jehovah,
In the valley of judgment.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
451
was made to cease, and its seon came to an end when the Son of
man, Jehovah-Christ, came in terrible judgment to execute ven¬
geance upon his enemies.1 Then was fulfilled the prophecy of Joel:
I will give wonders in the heavens and in the land
Blood, and fire, and columns of smoke;
The sun shall be turned to darkness,
And the moon to blood,
Before the coming of the day of Jehovah,
The great and the terrible. (Joel ii, 30, 31.)
There is not wanting evidence that the destruction of Jerusalem
was accompanied by many awe-inspiring portents, signs, and super¬
natural agencies co-operating with the armies of men. Josephus
describes a marvellous prodigy that appeared in the heavens on this
wise : “ I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable were it
not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that fol¬
lowed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals ; for,
before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their vislble sigM
armour were seen running about among the clouds and of judgment,
surrounding of cities.”2 He also relates how a star resembling a
sword hung over the city, and a comet appeared, and a great light
one night shone about the altar and the temple for half an hour.
There were also quakings and strange noises. Such portents amply
fulfilled the “terrors and great signs from heaven” of which Luke
speaks (xxi, 11). But who can say what other sights appeared at
the final moment of the catastrophe? The parousia was like the
lightning flash (Matt, xxiv, 27), not abiding for days like the Glory on
Sinai (Exod. xxiv, 16). “ The sight of the glory of Jehovah was like
devouring fire on the top of the mountain to the eyes of the sons of
Israel” (Exod. xxiv, 17) ; and that glory was a real presence, a veri¬
table parousia, for “Jehovah came down upon Mount Sinai” (Exod.
xix, 20). And yet in that Sinaitic parousia the Israelites saw no
form or shape (n^DH) of t]ie divine Person (Dent, iv, 15). Whether
those who saw the sign of the Son of man which appeared in heaven
1 Chiliastic writers, in claiming that the word rrapovaia, coming , or presence, always
means a personal presence, appear to assume that there can be no personal coming or
presence of the Lord unless it be literally visible to human eyes. This would exclude
the personal presence of God and of angels from the divine government of the world.
Will it be pretended that there was no personal coming or presence of Jehovah at the
destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah? Comp. Gen. xviii, 21; xix, 24, 25. But the
Scriptures give no intimation of any visible appearance of the holy One to the inhab¬
itants of the doomed cities. And so again and again has God come in terrible judg¬
ment upon wicked men and nations without any visible display of his person — a sight
which no man may behold and live (Exod. xxxiii, 20).
2 Wars, vi, 5, 3. Comp. Tacitus, Annals, xiv, 12, 22; xv, 22, 47 ; xvi, 13.
452
PRINCIPLES OF
This view of
the Parousia
-accords with its
nearness as
everywhere set
forth in New
Testament.
immediately after the tribulation of those days (Matt, xxiv, 29,
30) saw the person and form of the Son of man himself, or only
some symbol of his presence, must remain a mystery.1 In either
case his coming at that time was a real, particular, personal, and
momentous coming, to consummate an old dispensation and inaugu¬
rate a new one. It was truly a shaking of earth and heaven for the
purpose of removing that which was ready to pass away, and of
instituting “a kingdom which cannot be shaken” (Heb. xii, 26-28).
This view of the parousia of Christ harmonizes with all his utter¬
ances of its nearness. He had before this said: “There
are some of them standing here who shall not taste of
death until they see the Son of man coming in his king¬
dom” (Matt, xvi, 28). Compare the no less decisive
statements in Mark ix, 1, and Luke ix, 27. These dec¬
larations, probably often repeated, made a deep impression on the
disciples, and led them to look in their own day for “the blessed
hope and apj>earing of the glory of the great God and of our Sa¬
viour Jesus Christ” (Titus ii, 13). We should bear in mind that
all the books of the New Testament, except the Gospel of John,
were written before the destruction of Jerusalem, and they all wit¬
ness the current vivid expectation of a speedy coming of the Lord.
On the fulfilment of the prophecies of Matt, xxiv the auihor of
“The Parousia” makes the following observations: “It is possible to
believe in the fulfilment of predictions which take effect in the vis¬
ible order of things, because we have historical evidence of that ful¬
filment; but how can we be expected to believe in fulfilments which
are said to have taken place in the region of the spiritual and in¬
visible when we have no witnesses to depose to the facts? We can
implicitly believe in the accomplishment of all that was predicted
respecting the horrors of the siege of Jerusalem, the burning of the
temple, and the demolition of the city, because we have the testi¬
mony of Josephus to the facts; but how can we believe in a coming
of the Son of man, in a resurrection of the dead, in an act of judg¬
ment, when we have nothing but the word of prophecy to rely upon,
and no Josephus to vouch for the historical accuracy of the facts?
1 “ The sign of the Son of man ” may mean the ruin of the Jewish temple, consid¬
ered as a sign or token that the old aeon thereby is ended, and the new Messianic aeon
is begun. “ The sign of the prophet Jonah ” (Matt, xii, 39 ; xvi, 4) was no miracu¬
lous phenomenon in the heavens. The analogy between Christ and Jonah for three
days and three nights (Matt, xii, 40) may be compared with John ii, 19-21 as suggest¬
ing that “the temple of his body,” which was raised up in three days, was a prophetic
sign that upon the ruin of Judaism and its temple there would rise that nobler “spir.
itual house” (1 Peter ii, 5), “which is his body, the fulness of him who filleth all in
all ” (Eph. i, 23).
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
453
“To this it can only be said in reply that the demand for human
testimony to events in the region of the unseen is not altogether
reasonable. If we receive them at all it must be on the word of
Him who declared that all these things would assuredly take place
before that generation passed away. But, after all, is the demand
upon our faith in this matter so very excessive ? A large portion
of these predictions we know to have been literally and punctually
fulfilled; we recognise in that accomplishment a remarkable proof
of the truth of the word of God and the superhuman prescience
that foresaw and foretold the future. Could any thing have been
less probable at the time when our Lord delivered his prophetic dis¬
course than the total destruction of the temple, the razing of the
city, and the ruin of the nation in the lifetime of the existing gen¬
eration ? What can be more minute and particular than the signs
of the end enumerated by our Lord ? What can be more precise
and literal than the fulfilment of them?
“ But the part which confessedly has been fulfilled, and which is
vouched for by uninspired history, is inseparably bound up with
another portion which is not so vouched for. Nothing but a vio¬
lent disruption can detach the one part of this prophecy from the
other. It is one from beginning to end — a complete whole. Tlie
finest instrument cannot draw a line separating one portion which
relates to that generation from another portion which relates to a
different and distant period. Every part of it rests on the same
foundation, and the whole is so linked and concatenated that all
must stand or fall together. We are justified, therefore, in holding
that the exact accomplishment of so much of the prophecy as comes
within the cognizance of the senses, and is capable of being vouched
for by human testimony, is a presumption and guarantee in favour
of the exact fulfilment of that portion which lies within the region
of the invisible and spiritual, and which cannot, in the nature of
things, be attested by human evidence. This is not credulity, but
reasonable faith, such as men fearlessly exercise in all their worldly
transactions.
“We conclude, therefore, that all the parts of our Lord’s predic¬
tion refer to the same period and the same event; that the whole
prophecy is one and indivisible, resting upon the same foundation
of divine authority. Further, that all that was cognizable by the
human senses is proved to have been fulfilled, and, therefore, we
are not only warranted, but bound to assume the fulfilment of the
remainder as not only credible, but certain.” 1
1 The Parousia, pp. 547, 548.
454
PRINCIPLES OF
CHAPTER XXV.
THE PAULINE ESCHATOLOGY.
In exhibiting the chief points of the Pauline doctrine of the pa-
rousia and the resurrection and taking away of saints, we pass over
numerous incidental allusions, scattered here and there throughout
the several epistles, and take first the classic passage in 1 Thess.
iv, 13-1 V. The following is a literal and accurate translation :
(13) But we would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning
those who are falling asleep; that ye sorrow not, even as the rest, who have
no hope. (14) For if we believe that Jesus died and rose agnin, so also
will God through Jesus bring with him those who fell asleep. (15) For
this we say to you in a word of the Lord, that we, the living who remain
unto the corning of the Lord, shall not precede those who fell asleep;
(16) because the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout,
with voice of archangel and with trump of God, and the dead in Christ
shall rise first; (17) then we, the living who remain, shall together with
them be caught away in clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so shall
we ever be with the Lord.
It seems hardly possible to mistake the import of these words.
u Most modern expositors,” says Ellicott, “ seem rightly to coincide
The Thessaion- opinion that in the infant church of Thessalonica
Ian anxiety. there had prevailed, apparently from the veryr first, a
feverish anxiety about the state of those who had departed, and
about the time and circumstances of the Lord’s coming. They
seem especially to have feared that those of their brethren who had
fallen on sleep before the expected advent of the Lord would not
participate in its blessings and glories. Thus their apprehensions
did not so much relate to the resurrection generally, as to the share
which the departed were to have in the coming of the Lord.” 1
As little open to question are the four following propositions :
Four things in CO ^he Lord will come from heaven with signal ac-
the Pauline companiments. (2) The dead in Christ shall rise first,
doctrine. (3) The living saints shall be caught up to meet the
Lord. (4) Those thus glorified shall ever be with the Lord. But
while all agree that these four doctrines are clear and explicit be¬
yond controversy, there has been wide difference of opinion as to
1 Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistles to the Thessalonians, in loco.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
455
the time and order of these sublime events. According to one class
of interpreters, all these events are to take place at the end of. time,
or at the close of the Messianic era. The “we” is generic, and
does not therefore imply an expectation of the parousia and a resur
rection within the lifetime of that generation. The pre-miilennial-
ists, on the other hand, maintain the doctrine of two resurrections,
and hold that the dead in Christ, and no others, will be raised at
the coming of the Lord, but the rest of the dead, according to Rev.
xx, 5, will be raised at the end of the millennium. The most learned
and pious interpreters, whom the whole Church delights to honour,
are found divided in opinion and taking opposite sides in this great
controversy.
The main question, which logically controls all others in the case,
is whether the words, “wc, the living, who remain unto wh0 re_
the coming of the Lord” (ver. 15, comp. ver. 17 and main alive.
1 Cor. xv, 51, 52) imply an expectation that Paul and his contem¬
poraries might live to witness the parousia. That they do imply
such an expectation is the judgment of many of the best interpre¬
ters, and, perhaps, it may be said that, -were it not for certain dog¬
matic prepossessions, no one would ever have formed a contrary
opinion. “From the construction of these words,” says Liinemann,
“ it undoubtedly follows that Paul reckoned himself with those
who would survive till the commencement of the advent, as indeed
the same expectation is also expressed in 1 Cor. xv, 51.” 1 “Beyond
question,” says Alford, “he himself expected to be alive, together
with the majority of those to whom he was writing, at the Lord’s
coming. For we cannot for a moment accept the evasion of Theo-
doret (cf. also Chrysostom and the majority of ancient commen¬
tators, down to Bengel, and even some of the best of the moderns,
warped by their subjectivities) : 4 he speaks not of his own person,
but of the men who would be living at that time ; ’ nor the ungram¬
matical rendering of Turretin and Pelt, 4 we, if we live and remain ; ’
nor the idea of (Ecumenius, that the living are the souls , those fallen
asleep the bodies; but must take the words in their only plain
grammatical meaning, that the living who remain are a class dis¬
tinguished from those fallen asleep , by being yet in the flesh when
Christ comes, in which class, by prefixing we, he includes his read¬
ers and himself.” 2
On the other hand, one of the most guarded and able expressions
of the opposite opinion is that of Ellicott: 44 The deduction from
these words, that St. Paul himself expected to be alive, must fairly
1 Commentary on Thessalonians (Meyer’s Crit. Handbook), in loco.
2 Greek Testament, in loco.
456
PRINCIPLES OF
be pronounced more than doubtful. Without giving any undue
EHicott’s con- to ijgvlg, we, or to nepiAeLTrofievoi, those remain-
servative judg- ing , it seems just and correct to say that nepiAenroiievoi
is simply and purely present, and that St. Paul is to be
understood as classing himself with those who are being left on
earth (comp. Acts ii, 47), without being conceived to imply that he
had any precise or definite expectations as to his own case. At the
time of writing these words he was one of the living and remain¬
ing, and as such he distinguishes himself and them from the fallen
asleep, and naturally identifies himself with the class to which he
then belonged. It does not seem improper to admit that, in their
ignorance of the day of the Lord (Mark xiii, 32), the apostles might
have imagined that he who was coming would come speedily, but
it does seem over hasty to ascribe to inspired men definite expecta¬
tions, since proved to be unfounded, when the context, calmly
weighed and accurately interpreted, supplies no certain elements
for such extreme deductions.” 1
These expressions of judgment may be taken as specimens of the
best that can be said on either side of the question. It is worthy
The two opin- °f note that writers of the one class exhibit a settled
ions compared, assurance of following the most obvious import of the
apostle’s language, whilst those of the opposite class manifestly
feel that the language does not favour their view, and they ac¬
cordingly either plead the ignorance of the apostle, or else give his
words an unnatural meaning.
Putting aside all special pleading and dogmatic bias, it seems
The words im- hardly doubtful that the language of the apostle implies
Uouot a^peedy an exPecta^on that many of his generation would re¬
coming of the main alive until the coming of the Lord. No one can
Lord' fairly claim that Paul’s language implies that both him¬
self and all those to whom he wrote would be living at that hour,
for what he says about them that “are falling asleep” (ver. 13) im¬
plies the contrary. So also his words in 1 Cor. xv, 51, “we all shall
not sleep,” are virtually equivalent to “ some of us will sleep.” He
intimates that he himself rather expected to die (1 Cor. xv, 31, 32),
and, later on, this expectation became a positive conviction (Phil,
iii, 7-11; 2 Tim. iv, 6-8). But these facts and considerations do
not militate against the opinion that his language in the passage in
question clearly implies the doctrine of the speedy coming of the
Lord, and that many, if not most, of his contemporaries would live
until that glorious event. Ellicott is quite correct in saying that
these words do not necessarily imply that “Paul himself expected
1 Commentary on 1 Thess. iv, 15.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
457
to be alive,” ana Lunemann and Alford are altogether too positive
in their language on this point. It is unnecessary and uncalled for
to maintain that Paul here expresses any “ definite expectations ”
about himself, personally (or of any other individual), as if he might
not fall asleep before the parousia. “ He was one of the living and
remaining ,” as Ellicott says, “and naturally identifies himself with
the class to which he then belonged,” but when one argues that his
language does mot imply that any of that class then living would
remain alive until the Lord came, he will probably have the unbi¬
assed judgment of the best critics against him. This is virtually
confessed by Ellicott himself, when he adds: “It does not seem
improper to admit that in their ignorance of the day of the Lord
(Mark xiii, 32) the apostles might have imagined that he who was
coming would come speedily.”
How, then, are we to understand the language of the apostle ?
Shall we put upon his words an unnatural construction, The exegeticai
or say, as not a few eminent expositors afiirm, that Paul dliemma.
was mistaken in his expectations ? Here is a dilemma, and it has
been commonly assumed that we are shut up to the one or the
other of these two positions. Calvin and Cornelius a Lapide, while
assuming that the apostle knew the day of the Lord was in the far
future, hold that he represented it as imminent in order to promote
watchfulness in believers. Few, however, will accept such a theory,
for it virtually makes the apostle guilty of a pious fraud. Nor is it
consistent vfith sound views of divine inspiration to believe that the
inspired writers were mistaken in their expectations of an event so
important in Christian doctrine as this. The plea so often made,
that they recognize the uncertainty of the day and hour of the
parousia, is futile, inasmuch as all they say on this point is perfectly
consistent with a speedy coming of that day. Paul, in this imme¬
diate context (1 Thess. v, 1-1 0), speaks of the uncertainty of “the
times and the seasons.” He admonishes the Thessalonians that the
day comes “as a thief in the night” (as if referring to the words of
the Lord himself in Matt, xxiv, 42-44), and then adds: “But ye,
brethren, are not in darkness that that day should overtake you as
a thief.” Were these w^ords meant for the Thessalonians, or for
brethren of a far distant age ? Or can they mean: Brethren, ye are
in no danger of having that day overtake you as a thief, for it wall
not come until untold centuries after ye have all fallen asleep?
If it be held that the apostles w^ere mistaken in ex- Apostles’ doc-
pecting the parousia in their own day, it may be main-
tained wdth equal and indeed greater show of reason emphatic state-
that our Lord himself wras responsible for their error. ments>
458
PRINCIPLES OF
No words of theirs are more specific or emphatic than the assuring
declarations of Jesus that some of those who heard him speak
should not taste of death till they beheld the Son of man coming in
his kingdom (Matt, xvi, 28), and that generation should not pass
away till all these things were fulfilled (Matt, xxiv, 34). We reject,
therefore, the idea that the apostles were in error on a subject on
which their Lord had been so explicit in his teachings. Nor can we
accept the other alternative of the dilemma, above stated, and con¬
strue the language of Paul so as to make it harmonize with the sup¬
position that he did not expect himself or any of his contempora¬
ries to remain alive until the coming of the Lord.
Is there no -other way to understand the words of Paul? Does
. . not the doctrine of our Lord, as we have traced it in
Paul’s genera- the Gospel Apocalypse, warrant us in believing that all
these sublime events occurred at that momentous crisis
of the ages when Judaism and her temple fell a hopeless ruin?
Why should it be thought a thing incredible that God should then
have raised many of them that slept in death ? Why assume that
the rapture of living saints must needs be visible to all mortal eyes ?
The parousia, according to the Scriptures, was to take place at the
end of an age, and not to involve the cessation of the human race
on earth. Our Lord most plainly declared that then some should
be taken and some should be left (Matt, xxiv, 40, 41), and as we
have already shown (see above, p. 448), there is no sufficient reason
for assuming that such a rapture of living saints must have been
visible to those who were left.1 The ascension of our Lord into
heaven was witnessed by no great multitude.
1 “ It is strange,” says a recent writer, “ that so great incredulity should exist respect¬
ing the plain sense of our Lord’s declarations on this subject. Fulfilled or unfulfilled
right or wrong, there is no ambiguity or uncertainty in his language. It may be said
that we have no evidence of such facts having occurred as are here described — the
Lord descending with a shout, the sounding of the trumpet, the raising of the sleep¬
ing dead, the rapture of the living saints. True ; but is it certain that these are facts
cognizable by the senses ? Is their place in the region of the material and the visible ?
As we have already said, we know and are sure that a very large portion of the events
predicted by our Lord, and expected by his apostles, did actually come to pass at that
very crisis called “ the end of the age.” There is no difference of opinion concerning
the destruction of the temple, the overthrow of the city, the unparalleled slaughter of
the people, the extinction of the nationality, the end of the legal dispensation. But
the parousia is inseparably linked with the destruction of Jerusalem; and, in like
manner, the resurrection of the dead, and the judgment of the “ wicked generation,”
with the parousia. They are different parts of one great catastrophe ; different scenes
in one great drama. We accept the facts verified by the historian on the word of
man; is it for Christians to hesitate to accept the facts which are vouched 61/ the word
of the Lord ? ” — The Parousia, pp. 168, 169.
B1BLI CAL 1 1 ERMENE U TICS.
459
But it is said Paul wrote his Second Epistle to the Thessalonians
to counteract the wrong impressions of the first, and to show that
the day of the Lord would not come until many and
great events had first taken place. All this is conceded, ~ iess'n’
and yet nothing can be found in this second epistle which legiti¬
mately implies either that the parousia would not be in that genera¬
tion, or that any statement of the former epistle was incorrect or
misleading. The most that can he made of the apostle's language
is that the parousia was not so immediately present, or at hand,
that they should suddenly become excited, give up their usual occu¬
pations, and refuse to work. The great passage of this epistle
bearing on the subject reads as follows (2 Thess. ii, 1— 10) :
(1) But we beseech you, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord
Jesus Christ, and our gathering together unto him, (2) that ye be not quickly
shaken from your mind, nor yet be troubled either by spirit, or by word,
or by epistle as from us, as that the day of the Lord is just now at hand
(heoTrjicev !). (3) Let no one deceive you in ;iny way, for (it will not come)
except there come the apostasy (y dnooTaaia), first, and there be revealed the
man of sin,2 the son of perdition, (4) who opposes and exalts himself against
all that is called God, or an object of worship, so that he sits down in the
temple of God, exhibiting himself that he is God. (5) Do ye not remember
that being yet with you I told you these things? (6) And now what hin¬
ders ye know, for the purpose of his being revealed in his own time.
(7) For the mystery of lawlessness is already working only until he who now
hinders be taken out of the way. (8) And then shall be revealed the law¬
less one, whom the Lord Jesus shall take off 8 by the breath of his month,
and bring to naught by the manifestation of his coming; (9) of whom the
coming is according to the working of Satan with all power and signs and
wonders of falsehood, (10) and with all deceit of unrighteousness for
them that perish, because they received not the love of the truth that they
might be saved.
Two things, according to this Scripture, must take place before
the coming of the Lord: first, the apostasy, some notable falling
1 “ The verb tveonjKev” says Ellicott, “is somewhat stronger than hUorysEv (2 Tim.
iv, 6), and seems to mark not only the nearness, but the actual presence and com¬
mencement of the day of the Lord.”— Commentary on Thessalonians, in loco. Ellicott
translates it by “is now commencing,” or “is already come;” Lunemann: “as if the
day of the Lord is already present, or is even on the point of commencing ; Alford
says : “ These Thessalonians imagined it to be already come, and, accordingl} , were
deserting their pursuits in life, and falling into other irregularities, as if the day of
grace were closed.” — Greek Testament, in loco.
3 Tischendorf, Tregelles, Gebhardt, Westcott and Hort, following codices X and B,
read 6 uv&ponoc rye avoyias, the man of lawlessness.
3 Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Gebhardt, Westcott and Hort read uveXei, will
take off suddenly , will seize away. Others read uvaXoaei, will consume.
460
PRINCIPLES OF
The man of sin.
away from God and the true religion; and, secondly, the revela¬
tion of a monster of wickedness who would be the em-
anevenfof that bodiment of lawlessness and impiety. As for the apos-
generation. tasy, why should any one imagine it to be other than that
going astray of many, of which the Lord spoke repeatedly in his
eschatological sermon (Matt, xxiv, 5, 11, 12, 24). He foretold how
the love of many would wax cold; false Christs and false prophets
would arise, and faith in the true Messiah would be painfully defi¬
cient at the coming of the Son of man (Luke xviii, 8). Such apos¬
tasy became notably apparent before that generation passed away
(1 Tim. iv, 1-3; 2 Tim. iii, 1-9; 1 John ii, 18, 19).
But who is “ the man of sin, the son of perdition,” to be revealed
before the parousia ? The language by which he is de¬
scribed is evidently appropriated from Daniel where
that prophet delineates the character of Antiochus Epiphanes, sym¬
bolized in “the little horn” of chap, vii, 8, and viii, 9-12.1 Anti¬
ochus was recognized in Jewish history as a typical incarnation of
cruelty, blasphemy, and lawlessness. He sought to “ wear out the
saints of the Most High” (Dan. vii, 25). “He exalted and mag¬
nified himself above every god, and against the God of gods
wrould he utter wonderful things” (Dan. xi, 36).
Does history inform us of any such monster of lawlessness before
, the close of the Jewish aeon? Most assuredly. In
Nero a re vela- ... J
tion of Anti- Nero, the son of the dissolute Agrippina, w7ho succeeded
Christ. Claudius on the throne of the Caesars, we find every
feature of this dark picture verified. The power and vigilance of
Claudius hindered the manifestation of this son of perdition 2 until
he was poisoned by his infamous wife, the mother of Nero, and
thus taken out of the way. Paul might well have told the Thessa-
lonians of these things while he was yet with them, and common
prudence dictated that he should not write more explicitly upon the
subject. He had told them before, and now admonishes them
again, that the coming lawless one would be like another Antiochus
the sinful.3 He would usurp the place of God, and exhibit himself
1 Comp. Dan. vii, 24-26; viii, 23-25; xi, 21, 36-88, and our exposition on pp. 410,
411, above.
2 Bengel observes (Gnomon, in loco) : “ The ancients thought that Claudius himself
was this check ; for hence, as it appears, it happened that they considered Nero,
Claudius’ successor, to be the man of sin.” Grotius, Le Clerc, Wetstein, Whitby, and
others, hold that this prophecy of the man of sin was fulfilled before the destruction
of Jerusalem, which event they also regard as coincident with the parousia.
Compare the expression, “the words of the sinful man” (dvdpoc ufiuproXof]), in
1 Mace, ii, 62, where the allusion is to Antiochus, of whom chap, i speaks so largely.
u The day of Christ does- not come,” says Bengel, “ unless Daniel’s prediction concern-
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
461
as an object of worship.1 According to the working of Satan him¬
self, of whom he seemed the veriest incarnation, he made use of all
the “power and signs and wonders of falsehood” which imperial
authority could command to accomplish his purposes of wickedness
and cruelty, until he was finally cut off under circumstances of ter¬
rible judgment.2
Many have thought that the language of the apostle is too highly
wrought to be applied to the taking off of Nero. With The language
what propriety, it is asked, can he be said to have fallen ^thedeat^of
by the breath of the Lord Jesus and by the appearance Nero,
of his coming ? The question springs from the same assumption of
literalism as when it is asked, concerning Matt, xxiv, 29-31, When
were the heavens shaken, and the Son of man seen on the clouds
sending forth his angels with the sound of a trumpet ? The apos¬
tle, like his Lord, simply appropriates the language and style of
prophecy. According to Daniel, Antiochus, the beast represented
by the little horn, “ was slain, and his body was destroyed and given
to the burning flame” (Dan. vii, 11). So, too, when the impious
Herod allowed himself to be honoured as a god, “ immediately an
angel of the Lord smote him,” and he became eaten of worms (Acts
xii, 22, 23). 3 The execution of providential judgments may be often
wrought by unseen messengers of God, and, in the case of Herod,
where human eyes saw nothing but the ravages of foul disease, there
was at the same time the potent ministrations hf a destroying angel
(comp. Exod. xii, 23; 2 Sam. xxiv, 16). The visible effects of divine
judgment were terribly manifest both in the taking off of Nero and
in the unparalleled miseries of the destruction of Jerusalem. Verily
the righteous blood of unnumbered martyrs was visited upon that
generation (Matt, xxiii, 35, 36), and where the inquiring and observ¬
ant historian made record of appalling tribulation and woes, the
inspired apostle beheld a “ revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven
ing Antiochus be so fulfilled (in the man of sin) that it shall even better suit the man
of sin who corresponds to Antiochus, and is worse than he.” — Gnomon on 2 Thess. ii, 4.
1 It is well known that the persecuting emperors sought to compel Christians to
worship their images. The following words of Howson are worthy of note: “The
image of the emperor was at that time the object of religious reverence ; the emperor
was a deity on earth (Dis aequa potestas, Juv. iv, 71); and the worship paid to him
was a real worship (see Merivale’s Life of Augustus, p. 159). It is a striking thought
that in those times (setting aside effete forms of religion) the only two genuine wor¬
ships in the civilized world were the worship of a Tiberius or a Claudius, on the
one hand, and the worship of Christ on the other.”— Conybeare and Howson’s Life
and Epistles of St. Paul, vol. i, p. 56. New York, 1855.
2 On the miserable end of Nero’s life, see Merivale, History of the Romans under
the Empire, chap. lv.
8 Compare the description of the awful death of Antiochus in 2 Macc. ix.
462
PRINCIPLES OP
with the angels of his power in flaming fire, rendering vengeance
to them that know not God and to them that obey not the Gospel ”
(2 Thess. i, 7, 8).
The momentous events, therefore, of which Paul wrote in both
Nero’s reia- of his epistles to the Thessalonians, and the language
isni' and Christ *n portrayed them, are in harmony with what
tianity. occurred in that generation; and the exposition, which
we have briefly outlined, accords with the most natural and obvious
import of the prophecy. “But the question may be asked, Why
should the revelation of Nero in his true character be a matter of
such concern to the apostle and the Christians of Thessalonica?
The answer is not far to seek. It was the ferocity of this lawless
monster that first let loose all the power of Rome to crush and de¬
stroy the Christian name. It was by him that torrents of innocent
blood were- to be shed, and the most exquisite tortures inflicted upon
unoffending Christians. It was before his sanguinary tribunal that
St. Paul was yet to stand and plead for his life, and from his lips
that the sentence was to come that doomed him to a violent death.
It was under Nero, and by his orders, that the final Jewish war was
commenced, and that darkest chapter in the annals of Israel was
opened which terminated in the siege and capture of Jerusalem, the
destruction of the temple, and the extinction of the national polity.
This was the consummation predicted by our Lord as the ‘ end of
the age,’ and ‘the coming of his kingdom.’ The revelation of the
man of sin, therefore, as antecedent to the parousia, was a matter
that deeply concerned every Christian disciple.” 1
Additional features of the Pauline eschatology are seen in 1 Cor.
xv, 20-28:
(20) But now has Christ been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of them
who have fallen asleep. (21) For since through a man death (came), also
through a man the resurrection of the dead. (22) For as in Adam all die,
so also in Chiist shall all be made alive. (28) But each in his own order
(jayfiart, company , division, as of an army): Christ the firstfruits, then they
who are the Christ’s at his coming; (24) afterward the end, when he gives
over the kingdom to the God and Father, when he shall have abolished all
rule and all authority and power; (25) for he must reign until he has put
all the enemies under his feet. (26) As the last enemy, death shall be abol¬
ished; (2?) for (as it was written in Psa. viii, 6) all things he put under his
feet. But when he says that all things are put under, it is evident that
there is an exception of him who put all things under him. (28) But when
he shall have put all things under him, then also shall the Son himself be¬
come subject to him (the Father) who put all things under him (the Son)
that God may be all things in all.
1 The Parousia, p. 187.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
463
hat especially demands our attention here is the doctrine of
successive resurrections, of which the resurrection of
Christ himself a fact already past when the apostle successive res-
wrote — is the first in rank and order, and the firstfruits urrections-
and pledge of the rest. .All the dead shall be raised, according to
Paul, but they will come forth by successive companies; Christ first
of all, for “ he is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that he
might be in all things himself pre-eminent” (Col. i, 18). Then, at
the parousia, they who are Christ’s shall be made alive. How com¬
prehensive this division ( ray/ia ) may be is quite uncertain. “ Those
of the Christ ” ( oi rov Xqlcftov, the [confessors] of the Christ ) need
not in this connexion mean more than those who are in some special
sense related to the kingdom and glory of Christ. We naturally
think of “those who are beheaded for the testimony of Jesus, and
for the word of God,” who “have part in the first resurrection,”
described in Rev. xx, 4-G. There appears no sufficient warrant for
making this company include all the righteous dead who fall asleep
before the parousia. The language employed in both these pas¬
sages denotes at most only a select portion of the dead, and does
not designate the character of all the rest of the dead who are not
made alive at that time. “Those of the Christ ” are not necessarily
all those who are, or have been, in any wray brought into saving re¬
lations with Christ. “Afterward ( elra , not tote) the end.”
What end? The words which follow show that the end of the
Messianic reign is meant. It is the end (rekog) which will come
when Christ delivers over the kingdom to the Father, having put
down all his enemies, the last of whom to be abolished is death.
Manifestly, then, it is the close of the Messianic aeon, and after the
millennium of Rev. xx, 4, for how could they reign with Christ
after he had given over the kingdom to the God and Father?
According to Paul, therefore, a resurrection of “those of the
Christ” takes place at the parousia. This accords with 1 Thess.
iv, 16, 11; comp. 1 Cor. xv, 52. But at the end of the Messianic
reign all the rest of the dead will be made alive, for, ultimately,
the resurrection will be co-extensive with the race of Adam; “for
as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” There
is nothing, however, in this part of the apostle’s writings to
indicate how long an interval may separate the several acts or stages
1 “Paul regards the resurrection of all,” says Meyer, “including Christ himself, as
one great connected process, only taking place in several acts, so that thus by far the
greater part indeed belongs to the future, but, in order not simply to the completeness
of the whole, but at the same time for the. sure guarantee of what was to come, the
airapxy (firstfruits) also may not be left unmentioned.”
/
464 PRINCIPLES OF
of the resurrection. It may be longer or shorter as the Scriptures
may elsewhere intimate and the intervening events may require.
The languiige of the apostle in Phil, iii, 10, 11 implies the doc-
ii trine of a partial and special resurrection. He speaks
'of his ambition and longing to know Christ, “and the
power of his resurrection, and fellowship of his sufferings, becom¬
ing conformed to his death, if by any means I may attain unto the
resurrection from the dead” (elq rfjv e^avdaraotv rr\v etc vetcptov).
Why should Paul express such an anxiety to attain what was inev¬
itable ? If all must needs rise at some far future period, at the
same moment of time, this language is manifestly inappropriate; but
if a resurrection of martyrs and distinguished confessors of Christ
was to take place at the parousia, within that generation, the words
have a pertinency and force which all must feel.1
The same thought is suggested in the words of Jesus, Luke
xx, 35: “Those who are reckoned worthy to attain
Luke xx, 35. TT . . . , , .
(Tt^etv, comp. Heb. xi, 35) that age, and the resurrec¬
tion from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage.”
These, it is said in verse 36, “being sons of the resurrection, are
sons of God.” Meyer here remarks: “ The context shows that Jesus
has in view only those who are to be raised, apart from those who
are still living here, at the parousia.” 2 Godet in like manner says:
“The resurrection from the dead is very evidently, in this place,
not the resurrection of the dead in general. What is referred to is
a special privilege granted only to the faithful who shall be ac¬
counted worthy” (comp, xiv, 14, and Phil, iii, 11). 3
Notice also in this connexion the language of John v, 24-29:
(24) Verily, verily, I say unto you, he who hears my word, and believes
him who sent me, has life eternal, and into judgment comes not, but has
passed from death unto life. (25) Verily, verily, I say unto you, the hour
is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of
God, and they who hear shall live. (26) For as the Father has life in him¬
self, so also he gave to the Son to have life in himself; (27) and he gave
1 “To grant a particular resurrection,” says Mede, “before the general, is against
no article of faith, for the Gospel tells us that- at our Saviour’s resurrection the graves
were opened, and many bodies of the saints which slept arose and went into the holy
city, and appeared unto many (Matt, xxvii, 52, 53). Neither was the number of them
a small number, if we may credit the fathers or the most ancient records of Christian
tradition. . . . Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom, and others suppose this resurrection
to have been common to all the saints that died before our Saviour. Howsoever it
be, it holds no unfit proportion with this supposed of the martyrs. And how it
doth more impeach any article of our faith to think that may be true of martyrs
which we believe of patriarchs, I yet see not.— Works, p. 604. London, 1672.
2 Critical Commentary, in loco. 8 Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, in loco.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
463
him authority to execute judgment, because he is Son of man. (28) Mar¬
vel not at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the tombs
shall hear his voice (29) and come forth, those who did good unto a resur¬
rection of life, those who wrought evil unto a resurrection of judgment.
It is common to understand verses 24-27 of a spiritual resurrec¬
tion. This view, however, involves a needless tautology,
and fails to exhibit the noticeable progress of thought in Jotm v’ 34^9'
the passage. A spiritual resurrection is set forth in verse 24, and
is explicitly defined as a passing from death unto life. But verse 25,
adds with emphasis another and distinct idea. It speaks of an
“ hour,” both present and yet coming, when the dead (oi venpoi)
shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they who hear (impli¬
edly a select number) shall live. This hearing the voice (verse 25,
comp, verse 28) of the Son of God is not the same as hearing his word
(verse 24). Therefore, with Olshausen and others, we understand
the spiritual resurrection, which is so clearly set forth in verse 24,
traced onward in verses 25-27 to a higher glorification in the mak¬
ing alive of the mortal bodies of saints through the indwelling
Spirit (Rom. viii, 11), and the power of God (Matt, xxii, 29).
The resurrection of the righteous, at whatever hour it takes place,
rests upon the fact that they have heard the word of Christ, be¬
lieved in him that sent him, and thereby laid hold on eternal life.
Thus only may any man come to “know the power of his resurrec¬
tion” (Phil, iii, 10). “The hour is coming, and now is,” should be
explained by the analogy of 1 John ii, 18, “It is the last hour.”
It is a Johannean form of expression, and denotes the closing pe¬
riod of the pre-Messianic aeon. The miracles of resurrection, like*
that of Jairus’ daughter, the son of the widow of Nain, and Laz¬
arus, exhibited Jesus at that “hour” as “the resurrection and the-
life” (John xi, 25). The many saints who arose with him (Matt,
xxvii, 52, 53) furnish a further illustration of his word, and the-
power of his resurrection, and his authority to “make alive whom
he will.” The resurrection of the confessors of the Christ at his
coming (1 Cor. xv, 23; 1 Thess. iv, 16) would then mark the ulti¬
mate consummation of that “hour.” Verses 28 and 29 proceed to
designate, as all admit, the resurrection of the rest of the dead,
which would take place at a coming hour, which was not then
present or near at hand.
Paul’s doctrine of the parousia, and of distinct and successive
resurrections, may therefore be seen to rest upon the authority of
the teachings of Jesus, and is in essential harmony with the escha¬
tology of the gospels.
30
400
PRINCIPLES OF
CHAPTER XXVI.
THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN.
No portion of the Holy Scriptures has been the subject of so much
controversy and of so many varying interpretations as the Apoca-
Systeras of in- lypse J^n. The principal systems of exposition
terpretation. may, however, be reduced to three, which are commonly
known as the Preterist, the Continuous-Historical, and the Futurist. ,
The Preterists hold that the larger part of the prophecy of this
book was fulfilled in the overthrow <>f Jerusalem and pagan Rome.
The Continuous-Historical school of interpreters find most of th se
prophecies fulfilled in the history of the •Roman Empire and of
modern Europe. The Futurists maintain that the book relates
mainly to events which are yet to come, and which must be literally
fulfilled at the end of the world. Any attempt to discuss these
systems in detail, and examine their numerous divergent methods,
as carried out by individual expositors, would require a very large
volume. Our plan is simply to seek the historical position of the
writer, and trace the scope and plan of his book in the light of the
hermeneutical principles already set forth. Especially are we to
regard the analogy of the apocalyptic scriptures and the general
principles of biblical symbolism.
The writer addresses the book of his prophecy to the churches
Historical °f seven well-known cities of western Asia, and ex¬
standpoint. pressly declares in the opening verses that his revela¬
tion is of “ things which must shortly come to pass.” At the close
(chap, xxii, 12, 20) the Alpha and the Omega, who himself testifies
all these things, and manifestly aims to make the thought of their
imminence emphatic, says: “ Behold, I come quickly;” “ Yea, I come
quickly.” The prophet, moreover, is admonished not to seal “ the
words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near at hand ”
(xxii, 10). Surely, if words have any meaning, and thoughts are
capable of emphatic statement, the events contemplated were im¬
pending in the near future at the time this book was written.1 The
1 The plea of Alford and others that the h raxeiy shortly , of this book is “ a meas¬
ure by which, not our judgment of its contents, but our estimate of worldly events
and their duration, should be corrected,” and that the word “ confessedly contains,
among other periods, a period of a thousand years” (Greek Testament, Proleg. to
Rev., chap, viii, §§ 4, 10), is a singular proposition. He might as well have said that
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
467
import of all these expressions is in noticeable harmony with our
Lord s repeated declaration : “ This generation shall not pass away
until all these things be accomplished.” But when John wTrote,
the things contemplated were much nearer at hand than when Je¬
sus addressed his disciples on the Mount of Olives.1
After the manner of other apocalypses this book is divisible into
two principal parts, which may be appropriately desig- Plan of the
nated, (1) The Revelation of Christ , the Lamb (chaps. Apocalypse,
i-xi), and (2) The Revelation of the Bride , the Wife of the Lamb
(chaps, xii— xxii). These two parts, after the manner of Daniel’s re¬
peated visions, traverse the same field of view, and each terminates
in the fall of a great city, and the establishment of the kingdom of
God. But each of these parts is divisible again into smaller sec¬
tions, the first into three, the second into seven. The whole will
be apparent in the following outline:
I. Revelation of the Lamb.
1. In the Epistles to the Seven Churches, i-iii.
2. By the Opening of the Seven Seals, iv-vii.
3. By the Sounding of the Seven Trumpets, viii-xi.
II. Revelation of the Bride.
1. Vision of the Woman and the Dragon, xii.
2. Vision of the Two Beasts, xiii.
3. Vision of the Mount Zion, xiv.
4. Vision of the Seven Last Plagues, xv, xvi.
5. Vision of the Mystic Babylon, xvii, xviii.
6. Vision of Parousia, Millennium, and Judgment, xix, xx.
7. Vision of the New Jerusalem, xxi, xxii.
It should be observer! that John’s Apocalypse is, in its artificial
arrangement and finish, the most perfect of all the prophecies. Its
it confessedly contains the “ for ever and ever” of chap, xxii, 5. Manifestly the thou¬
sand years of chap, xx, 2, like the ages of ages in chaps, xi, 15 and xxii, 5, is a state¬
ment that runs far beyond the great catastrophes of the book, and is too exceptional
in its nature to be included among the things which were to come to pass quickly.
1 On the early date of the Apocalypse see Glasgow, The Apocalypse Translated and
Expounded, pp. 9-54 (Edinb., 1872); Farrar, The Early Days of Christianity, chap,
xxvii (Loud., 1882); and SchafFs new edition of his History of the Christian Church,
pp. 834-836. We have already discussed at some length the time of this prophecy
(see pp. 237-242), and have shown good reasons for believing that it was written
before the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. The preponderance of the best
modern criticism is in favour of this view. If now, in harmony with such date, we
find the structure and import of the book, as studied in the light of biblical apoea-
lyptics, a self-consistent whole, and meeting signal fulfilment in the ruin of Judaism
and the rise of Christianity, the interpretation itself becomes a controlling argument
in favour of the early date.
468
PRINCIPLES OF
outline and the correlation of its several parts evince that its ima-
Axtiflciai form £>eiT was mosf carefully chosen, and yet there is scarcely
of the Apoca- a figure or symbol that is not appropriated from the
lypse. Old Testament. The books of Daniel, Ezekiel, and
Zechariah are especially made use of. The number seven is nota¬
bly prominent — as seven spirits, seven churches, seven seals, seven
trumpets, seven heads, seven eyes, seven horns, seven plagues. The
numbers three, four, ten, and twelve are also used in a significant
way,1 and where symbolical numbers are so frequently used we
should at least hesitate about insisting on the literal import of any
particular number. Constant reference, therefore, should be had, in
the interpretation of this book, to the analogous prophecies of the
Old Testament.
Immediately after the opening statements, and the salutation and
The great Theme doxology of verses 4-6, the great theme of the book is
of the book. announced in this truly Hebraic and emotional style:
“ Behold he is coming with the clouds, and every eye shall see him,2
and* they who pierced him, and all the tribes of the land,3 shall wail
over him ” (chap, i, 7). Let it be particularly noted that these words
are appropriated substantially from our Lord’s discourse (Matt,
xxiv, 30): “Then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heav¬
en, and then shall all the tribes of the land wail, and they shall see
the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and
much glory.” The words “ they who pierced him ” are from Zech.
xii, 10, and should here be understood not so much of the soldiers
1 See Stuart on the “Numerosity of the Apocalypse” in his Commentary, vol. i, pp.
130-149. Comp. Trench, Com. on the Epistles to the Seven Churches of Asia, pp.
83-91.
* To press the literal import of the words “ every eye* shall see him,” and insist that
at the parousia Christ must literally appear on a cloud, and be visible to every person
on the habitable globe, involves manifest absurdities. The statement of the angels in
Acts i, 11, is that the Lord would come again in like manner as the disciples beheld him
going into heaven ; but that ascension, like the appearance of the angels, was visible
to only a chosen few. That he personally came again in that generation, and was seen
by multitudes, and by those who were guilty of his blood, we accept upon the testimony
of the Scriptures. But no person or phenomenon in the clouds of heaven could be
visible, at one and the same time, to all the inhabitants of the earth; and no one pre¬
tends that the Son of man is to pass through the clouds and make the circuit of the
globe so as to appear literally to every eye. The words of Rev. i, 7, are, therefore, to
be understood in general harmony with both the temporal and geographical limitations
of the prophecy.
8 The common English Version, “all kindreds of the earth,” appears to have misled
not only many common readers, but even learned commentators. No Hellenist of our
Lord’s day would have understood ttugcu ai tyv^ai rrjg yr/g as equivalent to all nations
of the habitable globe. The phrase is traceable to Zech. xii, 12, where all the fami¬
lies of the land of Judah are represented as mourning.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
4G9
who nailed him to the cross, and pierced his side, as of the Jews,
upon whom Peter charged the crime (Acts ii, 23, 36; v, 30), and
who had cried, “ His blood be upon us and upon our children ” (Matt,
xxvii, 25). To these Jesus himself had said: “Hereafter ye shall
see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming
on the clouds of heaven ” (Matt, xxvi, 64).
Having announced his great theme, the writer proceeds to record
his vision of the Alpha and the Omega, the first and WordS to the
the last — an expression taken from Isa. xli, 4 ; xliv, 6 ; Churches,
xlviii, 12. The description of the Son of man is mainly in the lan¬
guage by which Daniel describes the Ancient of days (Dan. vii, 9)
and the Son of man (x, 5, 6), but it also appropriates expressions
from other prophets (Isa. xi, 4; xlix, 2; Ezek. i, 26, 28; xliii, 2).
The seven golden candlesticks remind us of Zechariah’s one golden
candlestick with its seven lamps (Zech. iv, 2). The meaning of the
symbols is given by the Lord himself, and the whole forms an im¬
pressive introduction to the seven epistles. These epistles, though
writtenin a most regular and artificial form, are full of individual
allusions, and show that there was much persecution of the faith¬
ful, and that a momentous crisis was at hand. The various charac¬
teristics of the seven Churches may be typical of varying phases of
church life and character for subsequent ages, but they are never¬
theless distinct portraitures of then existing facts. The mention
of Nicolaitans (ii, 6), the faithful martyr Antipas (ii, 13), and the
mischievous prophetess Jezebel (ii, 20), is evidence that the epistles
deal with actual persons and events, though the names employed are
probably symbolical. The warnings, counsels, and encouragements
given to these Churches correspond in substance with those our
Lord gave to his disciples in Matt. xxiv. He warned them against
false prophets, told them they should have tribulation, and some
would be put to death, and the love of many would wax cold, but
that he who endured to the end should be saved. It is not to be
supposed that in this remoteness of time we can feel the force of
the personal allusions of these epistles as well as those to whom
they were first addressed.
The prophecy of the seven seals is opened by a glorious vision
of the throne of God (chap, iv), and its symbols are _ n
taken from the corresponding visions of Isa. vi, 1-4,
and Ezek. i, 4-28. Then appears in the right hand of Him who sat
on the throne a book close sealed with seven seals (v, i). The Lion
of Judah, the Root of David, is the only one who can open that
book, and he is revealed as “ a Lamb standing as though it had been
slain, having seven horns and seven eyes.” His position was “ in
470
PRINCIPLES OF
the midst of the throne ” (v, 6). The eyes and horns, symbols of
the perfection of wisdom and power, the appearance of a slain
lamb, expressive of the whole mystery of redemption, and the posi¬
tion in the throne,1 as suggestive of heavenly authority — all serve
to extol the Christ as the great Revealer of divine mysteries. The
first four seals correspond virtually with the symbols of Zech. vi,
2, 3, and denote dispensations of conquest, bloodshed, famine, and
aggravated slaughter or mortality.2 These rapidly successive and
commingling judgments correspond strikingly with our Lord’s pre¬
diction of wars and rumours of wars, falling by the edge of the
sword, famines, pestilences, terrors, days of vengeance, and unheard
of horrors. The pages of Josephus, descriptive of the unparalleled
woes which culminated in the utter ruin of Jerusalem, furnish an
ample commentary on these symbols and on the words of our Lord.
Why should we ignore the statements of the Jewish historian, and
search in the pages of Gibbon, or in the annals of modern Europe,
to find the fulfilment of prophecies which were so signally fulfilled
before the end of the J ewish age ?
The fifth seal is a martyr-scene — the blood of souls crying from
The Mauyr- under the altar where they had been slain for the Word
•Scene. 0f God (vi, 9? iq). This corresponds with the Lord’s
announcement that his followers should be put to death (Matt,
xxiv, 9; Luke xxi, 16). The white robes and the comfort given to
the martyrs answer to Jesus’ pledge that in their patience they
should win their souls (Luke xxi, 19), and that “ whosoever shall lose
his life for my sake and the Gospel’s shall save it” (Mark viii, 35).
But these souls wait only for “a little time ” (ver. 11), even as Jesus
declared that all the martyr-blood shed from the time of Abel
should be visited in vengeance upon that generation, even upon Je¬
rusalem the murderess of prophets (Matt, xxiii, 34-38). And then,
to show how quickly the retribution comes, like the “ immediately
after the tribulation” of Matt, xxiv, 29, the sixth seal
is opened, and exhibits the terrors of the end (verses
12-17). We need not linger to show how the symbols of this seal
correspond with the language of Jesus and other prophets when
describing the great and terrible day of the Lord. But we should
note that before this judgment falls the elect of God are sealed,
J In chap, xxii, 1, it is called “the throne of God and of the Lamb.” The throne
belonged to the Lamb as well as to God. Comp. chap, iii, 21.
8 To understand the rider on the white horse as a symbol of Christ, as many do,
and the others as symbols of war, famine, etc., involves the interpretation in manifest
confusion of imagery. If the first rider denote a person, so should the others ; but,
according to the analogy of corresponding prophecies, we have here a fourfold symbol
of impending judgments. Comp, above, pp. 429, 430.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
471
and there appear two companies, the elect of the twelve tribes (the
Jewish-Christian Church — the circumcision), and an innumerable
company out of all nations and tongues (the Gentile Church — the
uncircumcision) who had washed their robes and made them white
in the blood of the Lamb (chap. vii). This is the apocalyptic coun¬
terpart of Jesus’ words: “He shall send forth his angels with a
great trumpet-sound, and they shall gather his elect from the four
winds, from one end of heaven to the other” (Matt, xxiv, 31).
The opening of the sixth seal brought us to the very verge of
doom, and we might naturally suppose that the seventh Tiie seven
would usher in the ultimate consummation. But it Trumpets,
issues in the vision of the seven trumpets, which traverses a part of
the same field again, and awfully portrays the signs, wonders, and
horrors indicated by the symbols of the sixth seal. These trumpet
woes we understand to be a highly wrought picture of the fearful
sights and great signs from heaven of which Jesus spoke, the abom¬
ination of desolation, Jerusalem compassed with armies, and “signs
in the sun and moon and stars; and upon the land distress of na¬
tions in perplexity for the roaring of the sea and the billows; men
fainting for fear and for expectation of the things coming on the
world” (Luke xxi, 25, 26). 1 Accordingly, the first four trumpet-
woes fall, respectively, oil the land, the sea, the rivers and fountains
of water, and the lights of heaven, and their imagery is appropri¬
ated from the account of the plagues of Egypt, and from other
parts of the Old Testament. These plagues do not ruin everything,
but, like Ezekiel’s symbols (Ezek. v, 2), each destroys a third.
The last three trumpets are signals of direr woes (viii, 13). The
tormenting locusts from the abyss, introduced by the The plague
fifth trumpet, assume the form of a moving army, after from the abyss,
the manner of Joel’s description (Joel ii, 1-11), and are permitted
to torment those men who have not the seal of God upon them.
They may appropriately denote the unclean spirits of demons,
which were permitted to come forth in those days of vengeance
and possess and torment the men who had given themselves over to
1 “ The descriptions are of a kind,” says Bleek, “ that cannot be meant literally,
since they cannot be shaped into intuitive ideas. But it is also inadmissible to refer
them to single political events and catastrophes happening upon the earth, either at
the time of the writing, so that the seer must have had them already before his eyes,
or occurring later, so that these visions were fulfilled in them. Rather should we
view the contents of these visions as a general poetical representation of the great
revolutions of nature connected with the appearing of the Lord, or preceding it, in
which Old Testament images, taken particularly from the narrative of the Egvptian
plagues, lie at the foundation, and particulars should not be especially urged Lec¬
tures on the Apocalypse, p. 228. Lond., 1874.
473
PRINCIPLES OF
all wickedness. Describing the excessive impiety of the Jewish
leaders, Josephus remarks: “No age ever bred a generation more
fruitful in wickedness than this was from the beginning of the
world.” “ I suppose that had the Homans made any longer delay
in coming against these villains the city would either have been
swallowed up by the ground opening upon them, or been over¬
whelmed by water, or else been destroyed by such thunder as the
country of Sodom perished by; for it had brought forth a genera¬
tion of men much more atheistical than were those that suffered
such punishments; for by their madness it was that all the people
came to be destroyed.”1 Was not some fact like this before the
mind of our Lord when he spoke of the unclean spirit that took
seven others more wicked than himself, and returned and entered
the house from which he had been cast out ? “ So shall it be,” said
he, “ with this wicked generation ” (Matt, xii, 43-45). 2 3 *
The sixth trumpet is the signal for unloosing the armies restrained
The aimies of “ at the great river Euphrates” (ix, 14). All proper
Euphrates. names of this book appear to be symbolical. So we
understand Sodom and Egypt (xi, 8), Michael (xii, V), Zion (xiv, 1),
Har-Magedon (xvi,16), Babylon (xvii, 5), and New Jerusalem (xxi, 2).
It would be contrary to all these analogies to understand the name
Euphrates (in ix, 14, and xvi, 12) in a literal sense. In chap, xvii, 1
the mystic Babylon is represented as sitting upon many waters, and
these waters are explained in verse 15 as symbolizing peoples and
multitudes and nations and tongues.8 What more natural explana¬
tion of this symbol, then, than to understand it of the multitudinous
armies, which in their appointed time came with their prowess and
terror, compassed the Jewish capital about, and pressed the siege
with unrelenting fury to the bitter end ? The Roman army was
composed of soldiers from many nations, and fitly corresponds with
the abomination of desolation spoken of in our Lord’s discourse
(Matt, xxiv, 15). “ When ye see Jerusalem compassed with armies,
then know that her desolation is at hand ” (Luke xxi, 20).
At this momentous point in the revelation, and when we might
1 Whiston’s Josephus; Wars, book v, chapters x, 5, and xiii, 6.
2 The star fallen from heaven, to whom is given the key of. the pit of the abyss,
can scarcely denote any other than the Satan whom Jesus saw falling like lightning
from heaven (Luke x, 18), and the names Abaddon and ApoUvon are but symbolic
names of Satan, the prince or chief of the demons. It should be noticed also that in
chap, xviii, 2 the fallen Babylon is described as having “become a habitation of de¬
mons, and a hold of every unclean spirit, and a hold of every unclean and hateful
bird.”
3 That Euphrates is here to be taken as a symbolical name is ably shown by Fair-
bairn, Prophecy, etc., pp. 410, 411, and Appendix M.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
473
naturally expect the seventh trumpet to sound, there is a pause, and
io, “ another strong angel, coming down from the heav- The mighty
en, arrayed with a cloud, and the rainbow upon his An®el arrayed
i -3 j , . 1 _ _ . „ r with cloud and
neaci, and Ins lace as the sun, and Ins feet as pillars of rainbow.
fire” (x, 1). The attributes of this angel, and their correspondence
with the sublime description of the Son of man in chap, i, 13-16,
point him out as no other than the Lord himself,1 and his lion-like
cry, and the accompanying voices of the seven thunders, remind
us of Paul’s prophecy that “ the Lord himself shall descend from
heaven with a shout, with voice of archangel, and with trump of
God ” (1 Thess. iv, 16). This is no other than “ the Son of man com¬
ing in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory,” which Je¬
sus himself foretold as destined to come to pass in that generation
(Matt, xxiv, 30-34). His glorious appearance seems like a prelude
to the sound of the last trumpet, but the delay is not to defer the
catastrophe, but to furnish an opportunity to say that with the
voice of the seventh angel the mystery of God is to be finished
(verses 6 and 7). The prophet also takes a book from the angel’s
hand and eats it (8-11) after the manner of Ezekiel (ii, 9-iii, 3), and
is told that he shall “ prophesy again over many peoples and nations
and tongues and kings.” For John survived that terrible catas¬
trophe, and lived long after to make known the testimony of God.
It was more than a suggestion that that disciple should tarry till
the coming of the Lord (comp. John xxi, 21-24). The measure¬
ment of the temple, altar, and worshippers (xi, 1), and the treading
under foot of the holy city forty-two months (three years and a
half=a time, times, and a half a time), signify that the whole will
be given over to desolation. This, again, corresponds with our
Lord’s words (Luke xxi, 24): “Jerusalem shall be trodden down of
the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.” Judging
from the analogy of the language of Daniel, the “times of the
1 It is in accord with the habit of repetition common to apocalyptic prophecies that
the Son of man should appear in this book under various forms. First the glorious
Christophany of chap, i, then as the Lamb with seven horns and seven eyes (v, 6),
then as the mighty, rainbow-encircled Angel of this passage (x, 1), then as Michael
(xii, 7), and again as a Lamb (xiv, 1), and as the Son of man on a cloud (xiv, 14),
then as the rider on the white horse (xix, 11), and finally as the Judge sitting on a
great white throne (xx, 11). Thus the Apocalypse of Jesus Christ fittingly reveals
him in manifold aspects of his character and glory. So, also, on the other hand, the
arch-enemy, or antichrist, appears under various forms of manifestation, as Abaddon,
or Apollyon, the angel of the abyss (ix, 11), the great red dragon (xii, 3), the beast
out of the sea and out of the land (xiii, 1, 11), the scarlet-coloured beast on which the
harlot is sitting (xvii, 3), the beast out of the abyss (xvii, 8; comp, xi, 7), and even
the mystic Babylon considered as a habitation of devils (xviii, 2).
474
PRINCIPLES OF
Gentiles” (tfcwpot; comp. Luke xxi, 24, with the Septuagint and
Theodotion of Dan. vii, 25; xi, 7) are the “time, times, and half a
time” during which the destructive siege was to continue, and the
city be trodden without and within. During these same times the two
witnesses prophesy within the doomed city. "Who these witnesses
were we cannot now tell, for history has left no more record of them
than of Antipas, the faithful witness of Pergamum (chap, ii, 13).’
With this revelation, which stands as an episode between the
sixth and seventh trumpets, we are the more fully prepared to feel
the tremendous significance of the last trumpet. In that
The last trum- ° . . ,
pet. lingering hour of the sixth trumpet — an awful pause
before the final blast— “ There was a great earthquake, and the
tenth part of the city fell.” It would not be difficult to cite from
the pages of Josephus an almost literal fulfilment of these woid.'-.
The imagery has allusion to the trumpet signaled fall of Jericho.
1 The allusion to Zech. iv, as shown above (p. 352), may suggest that these were two
notable persons who alone remained in the city after the other Christians had hed.
These thus became the sole representatives there of the Christian Church. Tne author
of the Parousia gives several plausible reasons for supposing that they were none other
than James and Peter — the apostles of the circumcision, who abode in Jerusalem to
the last. See the Parousia, pp. 430-444.
2 See Josephus, Wars, book iv, chap, iv, 5, and chap, v, 1. If any one would sec
the fanciful and arbitrary hermeneutical methods into which some of the continuous-
historical interpreters of the Revelation unconsciously involve themselves, let him
note the following from Faber : “ The great city (mystic Babylon) is said to compre¬
hend ten different parts, or streets, which answer to the ten horns of the first
apocalyptic wild beast, and which denote the ten kingdoms of the divided Roman
Empire; for, since one tenth part of the great city is thrown clown by an earthquake
at the close of the second woe, such language necessarily implies a division into ten
parts. The same great city is viewed also under two different aspects, according to
its wider and its narrower extent. As a literal city may, at one time, comprehend
within its walls a much ’larger tract of land than it does at another time, whence a
district which was formerly within it may be subsequently without it; so the allegor¬
ical great city is variously spoken of, according as in point of geography it is variously
contemplated. On this principle the platform of the ten streets, though it constituted
the whole city when viewed in reference to the ecclesiastical authority exercised from
its palace or centre, constituted but a part of it when viewed in reference to the wide
dominions of the Roman Caesars ; and on the same principle, any province which lies
beyond the geographical limits of the ten streets may be truly described as being
either within or without the city. In this same manner, accordingly, we find the
province of Judea spoken of. Our Lord is said to have been crucified within the
great city, because he was crucified in the province of Judea, at that time within the
limits of the Roman Empire [so was Britain! Surely a remarkable way of telling
where the Lord was crucified] ; yet is that identical province described as being with¬
out the great city (Rev. xi, 8; xiv, 20). because it lies without the platform of the
ten streets which constitute the proper Western Empire, or Latin Patriarchate.” —
The Sacred Calendar of Prophecy (3 vols., Loud., 1828), vol. i, pp. 31, 32. Comp,
other specimens in Farrar, The Early Days of Christianity, pp. 434, 435.
475
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
Next and “quickly” (xi, 14) the last trumpet sounds, ana great
voices in the heaven say “The kingdom of the world is become
oui Loi d s and his Christ’s, and he shall reign unto the ages of the
ages” (ver. 15). The old aeon has passed, the new one has begun,
and the heavenly host shout a paean of triumph. The blood of the
souls that cried from under the altar (vi, 10) is now avenged, and
those prophets and saints receive their reward (xi, 18). The old
temple disappears, and the temple of God which is in heaven opens,
and reveals the long-lost ark of the covenant (ver. 19), henceforth
accessible to all who are washed in the blood of the Lamb.
Ihe second part of the Apocalypse (chaps, xii-xxii) is not a
chronological sequel to the first, but travels over the
same ground again. The two parts have a relation to of the Apoca-
each other somewhat like the dream of the great image SVtheS
and the vision of the four beasts in the Book of Daniel, under other
They cover the same field of vision, but view things symbols'
under different aspects. The first part exhibits the terrible ven¬
geance of the Lamb upon his enemies, as if contemplating every¬
thing from the idea of the king “ who sent forth his armies and de¬
stroyed those murderers, and burned their city ” (Matt, xxii, 7). The
second part presents a vivid outline of the struggling Church pass¬
ing her first crisis, and rising through persecution and danger to
triumph and glory. The same great struggles and the same fearful
catastrophe appear in each part, though under different symbols.
By the woman, in chap, xii, 1, we understand the apostolic Church;
the man-child (ver. 5) represents her children, the ad- Th6 woman
herents and faithful devotees of the Gospel. The im- and tbe Dragon,
agery is taken from Isa. lxvi, 7, 8. These are the children of “ the
Jerusalem which is above,” and which Paul calls “our mother”
(Gal. iv, 26). The statement that this child was to rule all nations
with a rod of iron, and be caught up to the throne of God, has led
many to suppose that Christ is designated. But the language of
the promise to the church of Thyatira (chap, ii, 26, 27), and the
vision of the martyrs who live and reign with Christ a thousand
years (chap, xx, 4-6), show that Christ’s faithful martyrs, whose
blood was the seed of the Church, are associated with him in the
authority and administration of his Messianic rule. The dragon is
the old serpent, the devil, and his standing ready to devour the
child as soon as born is an image appropriated from Pharaoh’s atti¬
tude toward the infant Israelites (Exod. i, 16). Michael and his
angels are but symbolic names of Christ and his apostles. The war
in heaven was fought in the same element where the woman ap¬
peared, and the casting out of demons by Christ and his apostles
476
PRINCIPLES OF
was the reality to which these symbols point (comp. Luke x, 18;
John xii, 31). The soul-conflicts of the Christian are of like char¬
acter.1 The flight of the woman into the wilderness was the scat¬
tering of the Church by reason of bitter persecutions (comp. Acts
viii, 1), but especially that flight of the church in Judea which
Jesus authorized when his disciples should see the signs of the end
(Matt, xxiv, 16 ; Luke xxi, 21).
Being cast down from the heavenly places, the dragon stood upon
x the sand of the sea, and next revealed himself in a wild
TheBeastsfrom . 7 . ...
the sea and from beast, which is seen coming up out of the sea (xm, 1).
the land. jje comkjnes various features of a leopard, a bear, and
a lion, the first three beasts of Daniel’s vision (Dan. vii, 4, 6), and
the power which the dragon gives him imparts to him all the
malignity, blasphemy, and persecuting violence which characterized
Daniel’s fourth beast at the appearance of the little horn. This
beast we understand to be the Roman Empire, especially as repre¬
sented in Nero, under whom the Jewish war began, and by whom
the woman’s seed, the saints (comp, xii, 17, and xiii, 7), were most
bitterly persecuted. He was the veriest incarnation of wickedness,
a signal revelation of antichrist, and corresponds in every essential
feature with the man of sin, the son of perdition, of whom Paul
wrote to the Thessalonians (2 Thess. ii, 3-10).2 At the same time
another beast is seen coming up out of the land (xiii, 11), having
two horns like a lamb. But he is only the satellite, the alter ego
and representative of the first beast, and exercises his authority.
This second beast is a proper symbol of the Roman government of
Judea by procurators, and if we seek for the meaning of the two
horns, we may find it in the two procurators specially noted for their
tyranny and oppression, Albinus and Gessius Florus.3 It is a well-
known fact that the Christians of this period were required to wor¬
ship the image of the emperor or die, and the procurators were the
emperor’s agents to enforce this measure.4 * * Thus the second beast
1 Paul fully recognized the spiritual and demoniacal character of the Christian’s
struggle when he wrote : “ Our wrestling is not against blood and flesh, but against
the principalities, against the powers, against the world-rulers of this darkness, against
the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places” (Eph. vi, 12). Such conflict
was a war in heaven.
2 See above, pp. 460-462.
3 See Josephus, Ant., book xx, chap, ix, 1, and chap, xi, 1. Wars, book ii, chaps,
xiv and xv.
4 Alford, after quoting in evidence from Pliny’s letter to Trajan, observes : “ If it
be said, as an objection to this, that it is not an image of the emperor, but of the beast
itself, which is spoken of, the answer is very simple, that as the seer himself in chap,
xvii, 11 does not hesitate to identify one of the seven kings with the beast itself, so
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
477
is appropriately called “the false prophet” (chaps, xvi, 13; xix, 20),
for his great work was to turn men to a blasphemous idolatry. The
mystic number of the beast (xiii, 18) would then be represented
both by the Greek A areivoc;, and the Hebrew "iDp the numerical
value of each being 666. For the beast was both the Latin king¬
dom, and its representative and head, Nero Ccesar.
ihe vision of Mount Zion in chap, xiv is a glorious contrast to
the preceding revelations of antichrist. It presents the vfsionof Mount
heavenly side of this period of persecution and trial, Zion-
and sets it forth in seven exhibitions: (1) First is seen the Lamb on
Mount Zion (the heavenly Zion), and with him are the thousands of
his redeemed Israel in great glory (verses lr5). These are no other
than the woman’s seed who have been caught up to the throne of
God (xii, 5), but are now seen from another point of view. .(2) Next
follows the vision of the flying angel bearing eternal good tidings to
every nation (verses 6, 7). This is done in spite of the dragon and
his agents. While the dragon, wielding the forces of empire, seeks
to annihilate the Church of God, the true children of the heav¬
enly Jerusalem are caught up to be with Christ in glory; but the
Gospel is still preached in all the world, accompanied by warning
and promise. Thus the saints triumph “ on account of the blood of
the Lamb, and on account of the word of their testimony ” (chap,
xii, 11). (3) Then an angel, as by anticipation, announces the fall
of Babylon the great (ver. 8), and is followed (4) by another who
warns men against the worship of the beast and his image (verses
9-12). (5) Then a voice from heaven pronounces them blessed
who die in the Lord from henceforth (ver. 13); as if from that
eventful epoch the dead in Christ should enter at once into a rest
we may fairly assume that the image of the beast for the time being would be the
image of the reigning emperor.” — Greek Test, on Rev. xiii, 15. It is strange that
learned critics will turn, with an air of contempt, away from an explanation of the
“image of the beast” so natural and simple as that given above, and find satisfaction
in Such fancies as that this image denotes the images of saints set up in papal
churches (Faber) ; or the pope considered as the idol of the Roman Church (Newton,
Daubuz) ; or the temporal power of the pope, and the patrimony granted by Pepin in
A. D. 754 (Glasgow); or the papal kingdom or hierarchy which the priesthood estab¬
lished (Lord) ; or the empire of Charlemagne, regarded as the image of the old hea¬
then Roman Empire (Mede) ; or the pope’s decretals (Osiander) ; or the Inquisition
(Vitringa); or the papal General Councils of Western Europe (Elliott). Writers so
full of visions of modern Europe and the fortunes of the papacy that they quickly
discern apocalyptic epochs in such events as the battle of Sadowa, July 3, 1866, the
pope’s bull of July, 1868, the insurrection in Spain under Prim, and the revolution in
France consequent upon the battle of Sedan, 1870, can scarcely be expected to view
any prophecy from the historical standpoint of the sacred writer. Comp. Elliott,
Horae Apocalypticae, 6th ed., Lond., 1872; Preface and Postscript.
47S
PRINCIPLES OF
which the dead of the previous aeon could not know. (6) The sixth
scene is that of the Son cf man represented as wearing a golden
crown, holding a sharp sickle in his hand, and attended by an angel
(verses 14-16); and with these soon appears another angel having a
sharp sickle, and the land was reaped, and the winepress, trodden
without the city, spread rivers of blood that seemed to deluge all
the land. This is but another picture of the same great catastrophe,
seen from another point of view.
The vision of the seven vials ( (pLaXag , bovds) full of the wrath of
The seven last God, which are also called the seven last plagues (chap-
piagues. ters XV) xvi), is but another symbolization of the seven
trumpet- woes (of chapters viii-xi), with which they minutely corre¬
spond. The duplicate vision of these terrible judgments (one judg¬
ment of-sevenfold fury, comp. Dan. iii, 19) is analogous to other repe¬
titions of the same subject under different imagery (see above, pp.
409-411, and 416, 417). This double vision of wrath, like the double
dream of Pharaoh, served to show that these things were estab¬
lished by the Almighty, and that he would shortly bring them to
pass (Gen. xl, 32). 1
The vision of Babylon the great (chapters xvii, xviii) is a highly
vision of the AVr0U^lt apocalyptic picture of the apostate Church of
mystic Baby- the old covenant (comp, above, p. 391). The then exist¬
ing Jerusalem, in bondage with her children (Gal. iv, 25),
is portrayed as a harlot, and the language and imagery are appropri¬
ated largely from Ezekiel’s allegory of the same city (Ezek. xvi;
comp. Ezek. xxiv).2 It is that murderess of prophets against whom
Jesus uttered the terrible words of Matt, xxiii, 34-36. From the
beginning of the Roman Empire Jerusalem sought and maintained
a heathenish complicity with the Caesars, and the empire became,
politically, her dependence and support. There was constant strife
among ambitious rulers to obtain the so-called “kingdom of Judea.”
Jerusalem was the chief city of that province, and is, therefore,
properly said to “ reign over the kings (not of the earth , and not
over emperors and monarchs of the world), but of the land” (chap.
1 “ The repetition of the vision of judgment in various forms,” says Farrar, “ is one
of the recognized Hebrew methods of expressing their certainty. The same general
calamities are indicated by diverse symbols.” He cites from the ancient Commentary
of Victorious the statement that the seven vials are but another symbol of the same
judgments as those denoted by the trumpets, and adds : “ There is fair reason to sup¬
pose that Victorinus derived this valuable and by no means obvious principle of in¬
terpretation from early, and perhaps from apostolic, tradition.” — The Early Days of
Christianity, chap, xxviii, p. 450. London, 1882.
2 Comp. Isa. i, 21 : “IIow has the once faithful city become a harlot!” Comp, also
Jer. ii, 2, 20 ; iii, 3-6 ; iv, 30 ; xiii, 27.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
479
xvii, 18). It is the same land (yrj), the tribes of which mourn over
the coming of the Son of man (chap, i, 7).' We, accordingly, take
the mystic Babylon to be identical with the great city which, in
chap, xi, 8, is called Sodom and Egypt, where the Lord was cruci¬
fied.2
The explanation of the. mystery of the woman and the beast,
given in chap, xvii, 7-18, has puzzled all interpreters.
t , • , . , , . , . r Mystery of
it is noticeably a composite explanation, and avowedly woman and
applies partly to the woman and partly to the beast beast'
which carries her. The mystery requires for its solution “ the
mind which hath wisdom” (ver. 9), and it may have had a meaning
and force for John’s contemporaries which we of a long subsequent
age cannot so easily feel. “The beast which was, and is not, and is
about to come up out of the abyss, and to go away into destruc¬
tion ” (ver. 8), is an expression of cautious reserve, which is notably
like Paul’s guarded language about the man of sin (2 Thess. ii, 5—7).
The beast with seven heads and ten horns is usually identified with
the wild beast from the sea (chap, xiii, ]), and may be understood
of Rome and her allied and tributary princes who took part in the
war against Judea and Jerusalem. The great harlot city, whose
1 “ The kings of the land,” who. in Psa. ii, 2, set themselves against Jehovah and
his Christ, are declared by the Apostle Peter to be such kings as Herod and Pontius
Pilate (Acts iv, 27). These, he declares, “were gathered together with Gentiles and
peoples of Israel.” Josephus says: “The city of Jerusalem is situated in the very
middle (of the land), on which account some have called that city the navel of t lie-
country. Nor indeed is Judea destitute of such delights as come by the sea, since its
maritime places extend as far as Ptolemais. It was parted into eleven portions, of
which the royal city Jerusalem was supreme, and presided over all the neighbouring
country as the head does over the body.” — Wars of the Jews, book iii, iii, 5.
2 It deserves notice that there is a title which, in the Apocalypse, is applied to
one particular city par excellence. It is the title “ that great city ” \rj t ru?ag ?/ peyalr/'].
It is clear that it is always the same city which is so designated, unless another be
expressly specified. Now, the city in which the witnesses are slain is expressly called
by this title, “ that great city ; ” and the names Sodom and Egypt are applied to it ; and
it is furthermore particularly identified as the city “ where also our Lord was crucified ”
(chap, xi, 8). There can be no reasonable doubt that this refers to ancient Jerusa¬
lem. If, then, “the great city” of chap, xi, 8, means ancient Jerusalem, it follows
that “the great city ” of chap, xiv, 8, styled also Babylon, and “ the great city ” of chap,
xvi, 19, must equally signify Jerusalem. By parity of reasoning, “that great city ”
[?) wo/bf f/ urydXri\ in chap, xvii, 18, and elsewhere, must refer also to Jerusalem. It
is a mere assumption to say, as Dean Alford does, that Jerusalem is never called bv
this name. There is no unfitness, but the contrary, in such a distinctive title being
applied to Jerusalem. It was to an Israelite the royal city, by far the greatest in the
land, the only city which could properly be so designated ; and it ought never to be
forgotten that the visions of the Apocalypse are to be regarded from a Jewish point
of view. — The Parousia, pp. 48G, 487.
480
PRINCIPLES OF
holy temple had been made a place of merchandise and a den of
thieves (Matt, xxi, 13; John ii, 15), was carried for a hundred years
by Rome, and at last hated and destroyed by the very kings with
whom she had maintained her heathenish traffic. Jerusalem’s rela¬
tion to Rome and her tributary princes was well voiced in that
Jewish appeal to Pilate: “If thou release this man, thou art not
Caesar’s friend. . . . We have no king but Caesar” (John xix,
12, 15).
But while the relations of Jerusalem and Rome are thus outlined,
The beast from the beast “which was, and is not, and shall come”
the abyss. ( napearai , shall he present , ver. 8), may symbolize a
deeper mystery. He is not a combination of the lion, the leopard,
and the bear, nor does he “ come up out of the sea ” like the beast
of chap, xiii, 1, but he is a “scarlet-coloured beast,” and “comes up
out of the abyss.” May he not, therefore, be more properly re¬
garded as a special manifestation of the “great red dragon” of
chap, xii, 3 ? The seven heads and ten horns of the dragon indi¬
cate seats of power and regal and princely agents through whom
the kingly “angel of the abyss” (chap, ix, 11) accomplishes his
satanic purposes. We need not, therefore, look to the seven hills
of Rome,1 or to ten particular kings, for the solution of the mystery
of the scarlet-coloured beast. The language of the angel interpret¬
er, even when ostensibly explaining the mystery, is manifestly
enigmatical. Just as when, in chap, xiii, 18, he that lias under¬
standing is called upon to “ count the number of the beast,” so here
the clue to the mystery of the seven heads and ten horns is itself a
riddle. “ The seven heads are seven mountains on which the
woman is sitting” (ver. 9). This may indeed refer literally to
seven mountains, either of Jerusalem or Rome, for both these
cities covered seven heights; but it is as likely to refer, enigmati¬
cally, to manifold political supports or alliances, considered as so
many seats of power or consolidated kingdoms, and called seven
because of covenanted arrangements.2 The words which follow
1 The seven mountains on which the woman sitteth (ver. 9) may be the mountains
of Jerusalem as well as the seven hills of Rome. There were Zion, Moriah, Acra, and
Bezetha, and the three fortified heights, Millo, Ophel, and the rock, seventy-five feet
high, on which the Castle of Antonia was built. See Edersheim, The Temple, pp.
11, 13. Boston, 1881 The notion that the septem colies of Latin writers were famil¬
iar to John and his Greek and Hebrew readers, and, necessarily to be understood
here, is as fanciful as that the eagles of Matt, xxiv, 28, are the Roman eagles. The
number seven, in this allusion to the mountains, need not be pressed into fuller sig¬
nificance than the seven horns and seven eyes of the Lamb in chap, v, 6, where no
one insists on a literal significance of the number seven.
2 “ The mountains,” says Glasgow, “ are, like other terms, to be understood
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
481
should be rendered : “ And seven kings there are,” not necessarily,
as commonly translated, “ they are seven kings,” that is, the moun¬
tains represent seven kings. We are not satisfied with any solu¬
tion of the riddle of these seven kings which we have yet seen, and
will not presume to add another to the legion of guesses which
have been put forth.1 But we venture to suggest that the beast
“ which was, and is not, and shall come,” may be understood pri¬
marily of Satan himself, under his different and successive manifes¬
tations, in the persons of bitter persecutors of the Church. It was
the beast from the abyss by whom the two witnesses were slain
(chap, xi, 7 ; comp. chap, xx, 7). Cast out by the death of one im¬
perial persecutor he goes into the abyss (comp. Luke viii, 31), and,
anon, comes up again out of the abyss, and appropriates the blas¬
phemy and forces and diadems of the empire to make war upon the
Lamb and his faithful followers. As the Elijah, who was to come
before the great and notable day of Jehovah (Mai. iv, 5), appeared
in the person of John the Baptist (Matt, xi, 14), and was so called
because he represented the spirit and power of Elijah (Luke i, 17),
so the beast “ which was, and is not, is himself also an eighth,2 and
symbolically. If the woman is not literal, why should the mountains be so thought ?
And to call the woman a literal city, built on seven hills, is equally gratuitous, whether
a Protestant says it of Rome or a Romanist of Constantinople.” — The Apocalypse
Translated and Expounded, p. 439.
1 The explanations of the seven kings may be divided into three classes : I. Those
which regard them as so many different historical phases of world-power, as (1) Egypt,
(2) Assyria, (3) Babylon, (4) Persia, (5) Greece, (6) Rome, (7) Germanic-Sclavonic Em¬
pire (Auberlen) ; or (1) Babylonian, (2) Medo-Persian, (3) Greek, (4) Syrian, (5) Egyp¬
tian, (6) Roman, (7) German Empire (Wordsworth). II. Those which make them
represent so many different classes of rulers, as (1) kings, (2) consuls, (3) decemvirs,
(4) military tribunes, (5) dictators, (6) emperors, (7) popes (Vitringa) ; or (1) kings,
(2) consuls, (3) dictators, (4) decemvirs, (5) military tribunes, (6) the wreath-crowned
(oTeOavoc;) emperors, (7) the diadem (duidiifin) emperors (Elliott). III. Those which
understand seven individual kings, as the first seven Caesars, (1) Julius, (2) Augustus,
(3) Tiberius, (4) Caligula, (5) Claudius, (6) Nero, (7) Galba (Stuart). Others begin the
seven with Augustus; Grotius begins with Claudius ; Diisterdieck throws out of the
number the three usurpers, Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, and makes the seventh head
Vespasian. Zullig understands the seven kings to be (1) Herod the Great, (2) Arche-
laus, (3) Philip, (4) Antipas, (5) Agrippa, (6) Herod of Chalcis, (7) Agrippa II., con¬
sidered as antitypes of the seven Edomite kings mentioned in Gen. xxxvi, 33-a8.
The author of The Parousia (Lond., 1878) identifies them with the seven procurators
of Judea, (1) Cuspius Fadus, (2) Tiberius Alexander, (3) Ventidius Cumanus, (4) Anto-
nius Felix, (5) Porcius Festus, (6) Albinus, (7) Gessius Florus. The above by no
means exhausts the various explanations. Surely he who would presume to deter¬
mine an important question of apocalyptic interpretation upon any theory of the seven
kings builds upon a very uncertain foundation.
2 According to Gebhardt “the eighth king is identical with the beast (comp.
Cowles on the Revelation, in loco), whose seven heads are seven kings. As individual
31
483
PRINCIPLES OF
is of the seven [of the same spirit and power], and goes away into
destruction ” (ver. 11). It is not at all impossible that the wide¬
spread rumour that Ni ro was to appear again grew out of a misap¬
prehension of this riddle, just as some modern interpreters still
insist (see Alford on Matt, xi, 14) that the real Elijah is yet liter¬
ally to come. The early Chiliasts, like their modern followers,
often insisted on the literal interpretation even of riddles.
The fall of Babylon the great is portrayed in glowing colours in
chap, xviii, 1— xix, 10, and the language and imagery
mystic Baby- are appropriated almost wholly from the Old lesta-
lon- ment prophetic pictures of the fall of ancient Babylon
and Tyre.1 The vision is fourfold: First (1) an angel proclaims the
forms of world-power appear to the seer to culminate and unite in an empire which
he calls the beast , so he sees again the particular stages of the development ol this
empire, the individual rulers of the same culminate in one prince, which he also de¬
scribes as the beast. As the leopard, the bear, and the lion are contained in the beast,
so are the seven heads of the beast contained in the one head. We may say that as
he sees in an individual king the nature of a definite empire, uniting in itself all ear¬
lier empires, personified, so also he sees unfolded in this empire the nature of that
individual king: this king is to him the empire in person; this empire is to him the
king in the form of a kingdom. It is also evidently much easier in the one place to
think of an individual king, and in the other of an empire, and it is therefore ever to
be maintained that the seer so thought ; the empire of which this is. the king, the
king whose is the empire.” — The Doctrine of the Apocalypse, English translation,
p. 221. Edinb., 1878.
1 How notably strange it is that learned exegetes, who can see striking fulfilments
of this prophecy in comparatively unimportant events of the politics and feuds of
modern Europe and the papacy, are forgetful of such events as the following, which
is only one of many similar pictures of woe given us by the Jewish historian. De¬
scribing the destruction of the temple, Josephus says: “While the holy house was on
fire everything was plundered that came to hand, and ten thousand of those that were
caught were slain ; nor was there a commiseration of any age, or any reverence of
gravity ; but children and old men, and profane persons and priests, were all slain in
the same manner ; so that this war went round all sorts of men, and brought them to
destruction, and as well those that made supplication for their lives as those that de¬
fended themselves by fighting. The flame was also carried a long way, and made an
echo together with the groans of those that were slain ; and because this hill was
high, and the works at the temple were very great, one would have thought the whole
city had been on fire. Nor can one imagine anything either greater or more terrible
than this noise ; for there was at once a shout of the Roman legions, who were march¬
ing all together, and a sad clamour of the seditious, who were now surrounded with
fire and sword. The people also that were left above were beaten back upon the
enemy, and under a great consternation, and made sad moans at the calamity they
were under; the multitude also that was in the city joined in this outcry with those
that were upon the hill ; and, besides, many of those that were worn away by the
famine, and their mouths almost closed, when they saw the fire of the holy house,
they exerted their utmost strength, and brake out into groans and outcries again :
Perea did also return the echo, as well as the mountains round about [the city], and
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
483
awful ruin (xviii, 1-3). He repeats the words already used in chap,
xiv, 8, but which were used of old by Isaiah (xxi, 9) and Jeremiah
(li, 8) in foretelling the ruin of the Chaldsean capital. (2) Then an¬
other heavenly voice is heard, like the words of Jesus in Matt, xxiv,
16, and like the prophetic word which long before had called the chos¬
en people to 44 flee out of the midst of Babylon, and deliver every man
his soul” (Jer. li, 6; comp. 1, 8; Isa. xlviii, 20; Zech. ii, 6, 7), and
this call is followed by a woeful dirge over the sudden ruin of the
great city (xviii, 4-20). This oracle of doom should be closely
compared with that of Isaiah and Jeremiah over ancient Babylon
(Isa. xiii, 19-22; Jer. 1, li), and that of Ezekiel over the fall of
Tyre (Ezek. xxvi-xxviii). (3) The violence of the catastrophe is
next illustrated by the symbol of a mighty angel hurling a mill¬
stone into the sea, and the consequent cessation of all her former
activity and noise (xviii, 21-24). (4) After these things there is
heard a paean of victory in the heavens — notable contrast to the
voice of the harpers and minstrels of the fallen Babylon, and all
the servants of God are admonished to prepare for the marriage
supper of the Lamb.
After the fall of the great Babylon there follows a sevenfold
vision of the coming and kingdom of the Christ (chap. The Parousia
xix, 11-xxi, 8). As, in Matt, xxiv, 29, 44 immediately of^he^son^
after the tribulation of those days ” the sign of the Son man.
of man appears in heaven, so, immediately after the horrors of the
woe-smitten city, the seer of Patmos beholds the heaven opened;
and the glorious King of kings and Lord of lords comes forth to
judge the nations and avenge his own elect. This great apocalyp¬
tic picture contains: (1) The parousia of the Son of man in his
glory (xix, 11-16). (2) The destruction of the beast and the false
prophet with all their impious forces (verses 17-21). This over¬
throw is portrayed in noticeable harmony with that of the lawless
one in 2 Thess. ii, 8, 44 whom the Lord Jesus shall take off with the
breath of his mouth, and bring to naught with the manifestation of
his coming;” and the beastly agents of Satan, like those of Daniel’s
visions (Dan. vii, 11), are given to the burning flame. (3) The de¬
struction of these beasts, to whom the dragon gave his power and
augmented the force of the entire noise. Yet was the misery itself more terrible
than this disorder ; for one would have thought that the hill itself, on which the term-
pie stood, was seething hot, as full of fire on every part of it, that the blood was
larger in quantity than the fire, and those that were slain more in number than those
that slew them ; for the ground did nowhere appear visible for the dead bodies that
lay on it ; but the soldiers went over heaps of these bodies as they ran upon such as
fled from them.” — Wars of the Jews, book vi, chap, y, 1.
484
PRINCIPLES OF
authority (chap, xiii, 2, 11, 12), is appropriately followed by the
binding and imprisonment of the old dragon himself (chap, xx, 1-3).
The symbols employed to set forth all these triumphs are surely
not to be understood literally of a warfare carried on with carnal
weapons (comp. 2 Cor. x, 4; Eph. vi, 1 1—1 V), but they vividly ex¬
press momentous facts forever to be associated with the consumma¬
tion of that age, and crisis of ages, when Judaism fell, and Chris¬
tianity opened upon the world. From that period onward no
well-authenticated instance of demoniacal possession can be shown.1
With that shutting up of Satan the millennium begins,
a long indefinite period, as the symbolical number
most naturally suggests (see above, p. 390), but a period of ample
fulness for the universal diffusion and triumph of the Gospel
(verses 4-6). “The first resurrection” takes place at the begin¬
ning of this period, and is chiefly conspicuous as a resurrection of
martyrs; a bliss of which not all the dead appear to have been
“accounted worthy” (nara^tcj^evreg, Luke xx, 35), but which Paul
was anxious to attain (Phil, iii, 11). For it is written, “ Blessed and
holy is he who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the
second death has no authority,” for of such Jesus said, “neither can
they die any more” (Luke xx, 36). Moreover, they sit upon
thrones, and judgment is given to them (comp. Dan. vii, 22; Matt,
xix, 28; Luke xxii, 28-30; 1 Cor. vi, 2), and they are made “priests
of God and of Christ, and reign with him the thousand years.”
The language of verse 4, however, intimates that others besides the
martyrs may sit upon thrones and exercise judgment with the
Christ (comp. chap, ii, 26, 27; iii, 21).
Of other things which may occur during the millennium no men-
The Chiiiastic tion is here made, and yet all manner of fancies have
Interpretation, been built upon this brief passage of the Apocalypse.
The Chiliasts assume that this millennium is to be a visible reign
of Christ and his saints upon the earth, and with this reign they
associate a most literal conception of other prophecies. The follow¬
ing, from Justin Martyr, is one of the earliest expressions of this
view: “I, and others,” he says, “who are right-minded Christians
on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the
1 “ We conclude,” says the author of The Parousia, “that at the end of the age a
marked and decisive check was given to the power of Satan ; which check is symbol¬
ically represented in the Apocalypse by the chaining and imprisoning of the dragon
in the abyss. It does not follow from this that error and evil were banished from the
earth. It is enough to show that this was, as Schlegel says, ‘the decisive crisis be¬
tween ancient and modern times,’ and that the introduction of Christianity ‘has
changed and regenerated, not only government and science, but the whole system of
human life.’ ” — Parousia, p. 518.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
485
dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then bejbuilt,
adorned, and enlarged, as the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and
others declare. . . . And, further, there was a certain man with
us whose name was J ohn, one of the apostles of Christ, who proph¬
esied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed
in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that
thereafter the general and, in short, the eternal resurrection and
judgment of all men would likewise take place.” 1 This Ebionite
conception, having gained an early prominence, has infected apoc¬
alyptic interpretation with a disturbing leaven even until now, and
there is little hope of a better exegesis until all dogmatic notions
are set aside and we fearlessly accept what the Scripture says, and
no more.
The old Chiliastic ideas of a restoration of all Israel at Jerusalem,
and of Christ and his glorified saints literally sitting Chiitastic inter-
on thrones and reigning in visible material glory on pret'ation with-
tne earth, are without warrant in this Scripture. Noth- warrant,
ing is here said about Jerusalem, or the Jews, or the Gentiles. An
indefinite number sit upon thrones and receive judgment. Among
them those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus liaYe
a most conspicuous place, and thus they receive the reward prom¬
ised in chap, vi, 9-11. These now live and reign with Christ, not
on the earth, but where the throne of his kingdom is, namely, in
the heavens. This accords with Paul’s words in 2 Tim. ii, 11: “ If
we died with him (i. e., by martyrdom; comp. Phil, iii, 10) we shall
also live with him; if we endure suffering we shall also reign with
him.” A resurrection of martyrs, to take place at the beginning of
the millennial era, is evidently taught in Rev. xx, 4-6, and is also
in harmony with the Pauline eschatology as we have already shown
(see above, p. 463). “I do not see,” says Stuart, “ how we can, on
the ground of exegesis, fairly avoid the conclusion that John has
taught in the passage before us that there will be a resurrection of
the martyr-saints at the commencement of the period after Satan
shall have been shut up in the dungeon of the great abyss.” 2
1 Dialogue with Trypho, Ixxx, lxxxi. “ The Book of Revelation,” says Hagenbach,
“in its twentieth chapter, gave currency to the idea of a millennial kingdom, together
with that of a second resurrection ; and the imagination of those who dwelt fondly
upon sensuous impressions delineated these millennial hopes in the most glowing
terms. This was the case, not only with the Judaizing Ebionites and Cerinthus, but
also with several orthodox fathers, such as Papias, Justin, Iremeus, and Tertullian.” —
History of Doctrines, Translated bv Smith, vol. i, p. 213. New York, 1861.
2 Commentary on the Apocalypse, vol. ii, p. 476. Similarly Alford : “No legitimate
treatment of this text will extort from it what is known as the spiritual interpretation
now in fashion. If, in a passage where two resurrections are mentioned, where
486
PRINCIPLES OF
(5) At the end of the millennial period there is to be a loosing of
The last defeat Satan, a rising of hostile forces, symbolized by Gou- and
of Satan, and jyiaarosr (comp. Ezek. xxxviii, xxxix), and a tearful
the last judg- & ® \ 1 , . . , « , , , , •
ment. catastrophe, resulting m the final and everlasting over¬
throw of the devil — the culmination of the prophecy of Gen. iii, 15.
This last conflict, belonging to a distant future, is rapidly passed
over by the seer, and its details are not made known (verses '7-10).
(6) The last great judgment is next portrayed (verses 11-15), and
may well be regarded as the culmination and completion of that
continual judgment (depicted in Matt, xxv, 31-46) which began
with the parousia and continues until the Son of man delivers over
the kingdom to the Father (1 Cor. xv, 24). (7) The last picture in
this wonderful apocalyptical series is that of the new heavens and
new land, and the descent of the heavenly Jerusalem (xxi, 1-8). It
corresponds with Matt, xxv, 34, where the king says to those on his
right hand: “Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom
prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” As there the
glory of the righteous is put in striking contrast with the curse
and doom of the wicked, and, it is finally said, “ These shall go
away into eternal punishment” (Matt, xxv, 46), so here, after the
glory of the redeemed is outlined, it is added, as the issue of an
eternal judgment: “But as for the fearful, and unbelieving, and
abominable, and murderers, and fornicators, and sorcerers, and idol¬
aters, and all liars, their part is in the lake that burns with fire and
brimstone (comp, ‘the eternal fire, prepared for the devil and his
angels,’ Matt, xxv, 41), which is the second death.”
It should be noticed how this last sevenfold apocalyptic vision
certain souls lived at the first, and the rest of the dead lived only at the end of a speci¬
fied period after the first — if in such a passage the first resurrection may be under¬
stood to mean spiritual rising with Christ, while the second means literal rising from
the grave ; then there is an end of all significance in language, and Scripture is wiped
out as a definite testimony to any thing.” — Greek Testament, in loco. This argument
holds equally good against all theovies of the “ first resurrection,” which allow that
the first is figurative and the other literal. Brown’s nine famous arguments against
the literal, and in favour of a figurative explanation of the first resurrection (Christ’s
Second Coming, pp. 231-258. New York, 1866), are all aimed against the sensuous
Chiliastic notion that it is the simultaneous resurrection of all the righteous dead — a
view which we repudiate as unscriptural. But Brown himself fairly overthrows the
notion of Scott and others that John saw a resurrection of sotds , and not of bodies.
“ This is to mistake what the apostle saw in the vision. He did not see a resurrection
of souls. He saw ‘the souls of them that were slain;’ that is, he had a vision of the
martyrs themselves in the state of the dead — after they were dead, and just before
their resurrection. Then he saw them rise : ‘ They lived ’ — not their souls, but them¬
selves. All figurative resurrections in Scripture are couched in the language of literal
ones; and why should this be any exception?” — Christ’s Second Coming, p. 229.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
487
(chap, xix, 11-xxi, 8) covers the entire field of biblical eschatology.
1 lie whole is rapidly sketched, for details would have These
visions
transcended the purpose ot u the prophecy of this book ” introduce what
(xxii, 10), which was to make known things which were S3S “of
shortly to come to pass (chap, i, 1-3). But like the last thebook-
< section of our Lord’s discourse (Matt, xxv, 31-46), which introduces
things running far beyond the time-limits of that prophecy, but
which were to commence “ when the Son of man should come in
his glory; ” so this sevenfold vision begins with the parousia (chap,
xix, 11), and sketches in brief outline the mighty triumphs and eter¬
nal issues of the Messiah’s reiorn.1
We understand that the millennium of Rev. xx, 1-6, is now in
progress. It dates from the consummation of the Jew-
-i t . • it,.- , , .. The Millennium
ish age. It is a round definite number used symboli- is the Gospel
cally for an indefinite aeon. It is the period* of the
Messianic reign, and the kingdom cf the heavens, like the mustard
seed and the leaven (Matt, xiii, 31-33), is passing through its grad¬
ual development. It may require a million years. The impatient
Chiliast will not be satisfied with this slow Messianic order, and re¬
fuses to see that the powers of darkness have been repressed, and
the progress of human civilization has been more marked since the
end of that age than ever before. But others see and know that
since the dawn of Christianity, idolatry has been well nigh abolished,
and every element of righteousness and truth has been gaining
prominence and control in the laws of nations.2 It is not in accord
1 Lange suggestively but somewhat fancifully observes : “ The entire scon is to be
conceived of as an seen of separations and eliminations in an ethical and a cosmical
sense, separations and eliminations such as are necessary to make manifest and to
complete the ideal regulations of life. Of judgments of damnation between the judg¬
ment upon Antichrist and the judgment upon Satan there can be no question; the
reference can be only to a critical government and management preparatory to the
final consummation. The whole aeon is a crisis which occasions the visible appear¬
ance of the heaven on earth. The whole aeon is the great last day. We may even
conceive of the mutiny which finally breaks out as a result of these preparations, for
a sort of protest on the part of the wicked was hinted at by Christ in his eschatolog¬
ical discourse (Matt, xxv, 44), and the most essential element in the curse of hell is
the continuance of revolt, the gnashing of teeth.” — Commentary on the Revelation of
John, p. 350. American edition. New York, 1874.
2 Pope represents the Catholic faith and interpretation as “content to understand
figuratively the glowing representations of the ancient prophecies as applying to the
present Christian Church. It takes the Apocalypse as a book of symbols, which does
not give consecutive history, but continually reverts to the beginning, and exhibits in
varying visions the same one great final truth. Satan was bound or cast out when
our Saviour ascended ; he has never since been the god and seducer of the nations as
he was before, and as he will for a season be permitted to be again. The saints,
488
PRINCIPLES OF
with either history or prophecy to believe that the Gospel of the
kingdom of Christ will have for its historical period an aeon shorter
than that required for its preparation in the typical dispensations
which preceded it. It is not probable that God would take four
thousand years of type and shadow to prepare the world for two
thousand years of light. We should not expect the earlier part of
the Messianic millennium to be without any darkness, and there is
nothing in the Scriptures to warrant the idea that it is to be a peiiod
of uniform and unclouded blessedness and glory.
There remains for our notice but one more great apocalyptic
picture, the vision of the New Jerusalem. As in chap,
the New Jeru- xvi, 19, under the seventh and last plague, the fall ol
8alem* the great Babylon (old Jerusalem) was briefly outlined,
and then, in chap, xvii-xix, 10, another and more detailed portrai¬
ture of that “mother of the harlots and of the abominations of the
land ” was added, going over many of the same things again, so
here, having given under the last series of visions a short but vivid
picture of the heavenly Jerusalem (xxi, 1-8), the apocalyptist, follow¬
ing his artistic style and habit of repetition, tells how one of the
same seven angels (comp, xvii, l-4.and xxi, 9-11) took him to a lofty
mountain, and gave him a fuller vision of the Bride, the wife of the
Lamb. This wife of the Lamb is no other than the woman of chap,
xii, 1, but she is here revealed at a later stage of her history, after
the dragon has been shut up in the abyss. After the land has been
cleared of dragon, beast, and false prophet, the seed of the woman
who fled into the wilderness, the seed caught up to.the throne of
God, are conceived as “coming down out of heaven from God,”
and all things are made new. The language and symbols used are
appropriated mainly from Isaiah Ixv, 17-lvi, 24, and the closing
chapters of Ezekiel. The great thought is : Babylon, the bloody
harlot, has fallen, and New Jerusalem, the glorious Bride, appears.
As the closing chapters of Ezekiel have been variously under-
Meaning of the stood (see above, pp. 436, 437), so this vision of the
New Jerusalem. New Jerusalem, which is evidently modelled after the
pattern of that older Apocalypse, has been explained in different
martyrs, and others — the martyrs pre-eminently — now rule with Christ: and hath made
us a kingdom (Rev. i, 6), they themselves sing ; and they reign upon earth (Rev. v, 10).
The apostles, and all saints, have part in the first resurrection, and in the present
regeneration reign with Jesus, though the future regeneration shall be yet more abun¬
dant. The unanimous strain of prophecy concerning the glory of the Messiah’s king¬
dom is to be interpreted as partly fulfilled in the spiritual reign of Christ in this
world, which is not yet fully manifested as it will be ; and partly as the earthly figure
of a heavenly reality hereafter.” — Compendium of Christian Theology, voi. iii, pp.
400, 401. N. Y., 1881.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
489
ways. (1) According to one class of interpreters, the future resto¬
ration of the Jews to Palestine, and the rebuilding of Jerusalem on
a magnificent scale, are here predicted.1 (2) According to others,
the new heaven, new land, and new Jerusalem are but a symbolic
recapitulation of 'the visions of chap, xx, for the purpose of fuller
detail, and are to be understood as synchronizing with the period
of the thousand years. (3) But most interpreters regard the proph¬
ecy as post-millennial, and descriptive of the final heavenly state
of the glorified saints of God. Rejecting the first of the above
named views (which represents the sensuous Ebionite conception of
the kingdom of heaven, and magnifies the letter to the quenching
of the spiiit of Sciiptuie), we may blend the two other interpreta¬
tions. Ezekiel’s vision, as we have seen (p. 437), symbolized the
ew Testament Church and kingdom of God ; why should not the
same conception enter into this parallel prophecy? But as later
revelations are wont to embody fuller and more perfect outlines of
the provisions of grace, so John’s picture of new heaven, new land,
and new city is more luminous and far reaching in its indications
of what God has prepared for those who love him and keep his
commandments.
The words of Haggai ii, 6, 7, are acknowledged by the best inter¬
preters to be a Messianic prophecy: “Yet once — it is Haq. u 6 7 and
a little while — and I will shake the heavens, and the Heb* xil> 26 28-
land, and the sea, and the desert ; and I will shake all the nations,
and they shall come to the delight2 of all the nations, and I will
1 Here properly belongs that exposition of the “ new heaven and new earth,” which
finds in Isa. li, 16; Ixv, 17 ; lxvi, 22; 2 Pet. iii, 10-13; Rev. xx, 11 ; xxi, 1, a literal
prophecy of the destruction of the world by fire, and the creation of a new world in
its place. The only question among these interpreters is whether an absolutely new
creation is intended, or only a renovation (7 raXryyevEGia, regeneration (Matt, xix, 28)
of the materials of the old. That these texts may intimate or dimly foreshadow some
such ultimate reconstruction of the physical creation, need not be denied, for we know
not the possibilities of the future, nor the purposes of God respecting all tilings which
he has created. But the contexts of these several passages do not authorize such a
doctrine. Isa. li, 16, refers to the resuscitation of Zion and Jerusalem, and is clearly
metaphorical. The same is true of Isa. Ixv, 17, and lxvi, 22, for the context in all
these places confines the reference to Jerusalem and the people of God, and sets forth
the same great prophetic conception of the Messianic future as the closing chapters
of Ezekiel. The language of 2 Pet. iii, 10, 12, is taken mainly from Isa. xxx, 4, and
is limited to the parousia, like the language of Matt, xxiv, 29. Then the Lord made
“not only the land but also the heaven” to tremble (Heb. xii, 26), and removed the
things that were shaken in order to establish a kingdom which cannot be moved
(Heb. xii, 27, 28).
2 This most simple construction of the Hebrew has been strangely ignored by a
supposed necessity of making mon, delight , or desire , the subject of the verb !|K3,
* ! V T
490
PRINCIPLES OF
fill this house with glory.” This prophecy is quoted and explained,
in Heb. xii, 26-28, as the removal of an earth and heaven which shall
give place to an “ immovable kingdom.” Is there any reason for be¬
lieving this immovable kingdom to be other thaiv that of which the
Lord spoke in Matt, xvi, 28: “There are some standing here who
shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his
kingdom”? The greatest “glory of that latter house,” of which
Haggai (ii, 7, 9) spoke, was attained when the Lord Christ entered
and taught within its courts; but the destruction of the second
temple, and the shaking of “the heaven and the land” which it
represented, prepared the way for the nobler temple of “his body,
the fulness of him who fills all things in all” (Eph. i, 23). Of this
body Christ is the head, the husband, and Saviour (Eph. v, 23),
having loved her and given himself for her, “ that he might sanctify
her, having purified her by the laver of water in the word, that he
himself might present to himself in glorious beauty the Church,
not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing” (Eph. v, 26, 27). 1
This glorious Church is manifestly the same as the Bride, the wife
of the Lamb, the holy city, New Jerusalem. It was necessary that
the Old Testament visible Church should be shaken and fall and
pass away, for its glory had departed; but in its place comes forth
“ the whole assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled
in heaven” (Heb. xii, 23).
If, furthermore, we allow the author of the Epistle to the He-
Aiiusion of brews to guide us to a right understanding of the New
Heb. xii, 22, 23. Jerusalem, we will observe that the communion and
fellowship of New Testament saints are apprehended as heaven
begun on earth. It is altogether probable that this epistle was
come. But is plural, and has naturally for its subject the nations just
mentioned. So in Isa. xxxv, 10, “ The ransomed of Jehovah shall return, and come to
Zion , with shouting and everlasting joy upon their heads.” When we read further,
in Isa. lxv. 18, as explanatory of the new heavens and new land (ver. 17), “Behold,
I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy,” we will find therein the surest
explanation of the rn^n, delight , of Hag. ii, 7. The New Jerusalem, the New Testa¬
ment Church and kingdom of God, is the delight and desire of the nations, which, ac¬
cording to Rev. xxi, 24, walk by the light of it.
1 “ The union of Christ,” says Meyer, “ with his Church, at the parousia, in order
to confer upon it Messianic blessedness, is conceived of by Paul (as also by Christ
himself, Matt, xxv, 1 ; comp. Rev. xix, 7 ; see also John lii, 29) under the figure of the
bringing home of a bride, wherein Christ appears as the bridegroom, and sets forth
the bride, i. e., his Church, as a spotless virgin (the bodily purity is a representative
of the ethical) before himself, after he has already in this age cleansed it by the
bath of baptism, and sanctified it through his word.” — Critical Com. on Ephesians,
in loco.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
491
written after the Book of Revelation,1 and direct allusions to it are
apparent in the following passage: “Ye are come ( npooeArjXv^are ,
ye have already come) unto Mount Zion, and unto the city of the
living God, the heavenly Jerusalem.” The Christian believer, when
his life becomes hidden with Christ in God, has already entered
into a communion and fellowship that never ceases.2 His name is
enrolled in heaven. He dwells in God and God in him, and all
subsequent glorification in time and in eternity is but a continuous
and growing realization of the blessedness of the Church and King¬
dom of God.
In the vision of the New Jerusalem we have the last New Testa¬
ment revelation of the spiritual and heavenly blessed- New Jerusalem
ness and glory of which the Mosaic tabernacle was a the heavenly
material symbol. The “dwelling of the testimony” the tabernacle
(nnyn Exod. xxxviii, 21) and its various vessels symbolized,
and services were “copies of the things in the heavens” (Heb.
ix, 23), and Christ has entered into the holy places “ through the
greater and more perfect tabernacle” (Heb. ix, 11), thereby making
it possible for all true believers to enter “ with boldness into the
entrance way of the holies” (Heb. x, 19). This entrance into the
holy places and fellowships is realized only as “ we draw near with
a true heart, in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled
from an evil conscience, and the body washed with pure water”
(Heb. x, 22), and such spiritual access is possible to us now. The
Alpha and the Omega, accordingly, says: “ Blessed are they who
wash their robes, that they may have the authority over the tree
of life, and by the gates may enter into the city” (Rev. xxii, 14).
This city is represented as a perfect cube in form (Rev. xxi, 16),
and may therefore be regarded as the heavenly Holy of Holies,
into the entrance way (eloodov) of which we may now approach.
All this accords with the voice from the throne, which said : “ Be¬
hold the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will tabernacle with
them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with
them” (Rev. xxi, 3). Herein we discern the true antitype of the
ancient tabernacle and temple, and hence it is that this holy city
1 Comp, the “innumerable company of angels” (Heb. xii, 22) with Rev. v, 11 ; and
the “assembly and church enrolled in heaven” with Rev. xiii, 8; xxi, 27; and spirits
of just men made perfect” with Rev. vii, 13-17. References and allusions as direct
and explicit as these, made by any of the early Fathers to books of the New Testa¬
ment would be regarded bv all critics as indisputable evidence of the pre-existence
of such books. Comp. Cowles, The Revelation of John, p. 22 ; Glasgow, The Apoca¬
lypse, Translated and Expounded, pp. 29, 30.
2 Comp. Riehm, Messianic Prophecy, pp. 164-166. Edinb., 1876.
492
PRINCIPLES OF
admits of no temple, and no light of sun and moon, for the Lord
God, the Almighty, and the Lamb are its light and its temple
(Rev. xxi, 22, 23). Moreover, no cherubim appear within this Holy
of Holies, for these former symbols of redeemed humanity are now
supplanted by the innumerable company of Adam’s race, from
whom the curse ( aard^efia , Rev. xxii, 3) has been removed, and
who take their places about the throne of God and of the Lamb,
act as his servants there, behold his face, and have his name upon
their foreheads (Rev. xxii, 3, 4).1
The New Jerusalem, then, is the apocalyptic portraiture of the
New Testament Church and Kingdom of God. Its symbolism ex¬
hibits the heavenly nature of the communion and fellowship of God
and his people, which is entered here by faith, but which opens
into unspeakable fulness of glory through ages of ages.
There is room for differences of opinion in the interpretation of
particular passages and symbols in all the apocalyptic Scriptures.
But attention to their general harmonies, and a careful study of
the scope and outline of each prophecy as a whole, will go far to
save us from the hopeless confusion and contradiction into wThich
many by neglecting this method have fallen.
We are now prepared to note the unity and harmony of New
summary of Testament apocalyptics. There is no contradiction be-
New Testa- tween the teachings of Jesus, the Epistles of Paul, and
lyptics audEs- the Apocalypse of John, touching the end of the age
cbatoiogy. and tjie coming Gf the Lord. They all agree that the
end was near at hand, and that the Lord would come in his king¬
dom before that generation should pass away. It is further evi¬
dent that the coming of Christ is pre-millennial, for it is the formal
assumption of the dominion and power and judgment which he will
exercise until he has put all enemies under his feet. The modern
Chiliasts have done the Church an excellent service in calling atten¬
tion to this great fact. But their error is in making that coming yet
future, whereas Jesus affirmed that it would take place before some
of those who heard him speak should taste of death. The post-
millenarians, on the other hand, err in confounding the parousia
with the mysteries of that final hour when Christ shall give over
the kingdom to the Father, and God shall be all in all. Between
these two events the Messianic a3on intervenes. Its beginning was
like the little mustard-seed, or like the stone cut out of the moun¬
tain without hands, but it grows, and rolls on, and will increase until
it becomes a great mountain and fills all the earth. Its history and
1 Compare the exposition of the symbolism of the tabernacle and its services on
pp. 359-368, above.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
493
triumphs are still mainly in the future, and centuries will prob¬
ably elapse before it reaches fulness of development. When the
Christ shall have put down all other enemies he will finally abolish
death. At that hour “ all who are in the tombs shall hear his voice,
and shall come forth; those who did good unto a resurrection of
life, and those who wrought evil unto a resurrection of damnation ”
(John v, 28). This resurrection is associated with the last judg¬
ment (Rev. xx, 12-15). The final manifestation of the Christ, when
he shall have completed the work of redemption, and delivers over
the kingdom to the Father, is left by the sacred writers in too great
mystery for us to affirm definitely any thing concerning it.
CHAPTER XXYIT.
NO DOUBLE SENSE IN PROPHECY.
The hermeneutical principles which we have now set forth neces¬
sarily exclude the doctrine that the prophecies of Scripture contain
an occult or double sense. It has been alleged by some that as
these oracles are heavenly and divine we should expect to find in
them manifold meanings. They must needs differ from other
books. Hence has arisen not only the doctrine of a double sense,
but of a threefold and fourfold sense, and the rabbis Theory of a
went so far as to insist that there are “mountains of ^tele®enaSn
sense in every word of Scripture.” We mny readily sound inter-
admit that the Scriptures are capable of manifold prac- pretatlon-
tical ajoplications ; otherwise they would not be so useful for doc¬
trine, correction, and instruction in righteousness (2 Tim. iii, 16).
But the moment we admit the principle that portions of Scripture
contain an occult or double sense we introduce an element of un¬
certainty in the sacred volume, and unsettle all scientific interpre¬
tation. “If the Scripture has more than one meaning,” says Dr.
Owen, “it has no meaning at all.” “I hold,” says Ryle, “that the
words of Scripture were intended to have one definite sense, and
that our first object should be to discover that sense, and adhere
rigidly to it. . . . To say that words do mean a thing merely be¬
cause they can be tortured into meaning it is a most dishonourable
and dangerous way of handling Scripture.”1 “This scheme of in¬
terpretation,” says Stuart, “forsakes and sets aside the common
1 Expository Thoughts on St. Luke, vol. i, p. 383.
494
PRINCIPLES OF
laws of language. The Bible excepted, in no book, treatise, epis¬
tle, discourse, or conversation, ever written, published, or addressed
by any one man to his fellow beings (unless in the way of sport,
or with an intention to deceive), can a double sense be found. There
are, indeed, charades, enigmas, phrases with a double entente , and
the like, perhaps, in all languages; there have been abundance of
heathen oracles which were susceptible of two interpretations; but
even among all these there never has been, and there never was a
design that there should be, but one sense or meaning in reality.
Ambiguity of language may be, and has been, designedly resorted
to in 'order to mislead the reader or hearer, or in order to conceal
the ignorance of soothsayers, or to provide for their credit amid
future exigencies; but this is quite foreign to the matter of a seri¬
ous and bona fide double meaning of words. Nor can we for a mo¬
ment, without violating the dignity and sacredness of the Scriptures,
suppose that the inspired writers are to be compared to the authors
of riddles, conundrums, enigmas, and ambiguous heathen oracles.” 1
Some writers have confused this subject by connecting it with
Typology and the doctrine of type and antitype. As many persons
double sense Of an(j events of the Old Testament were types of greater
language c not Qney tQ come^ gQ language respecting them is sup-
founded. posed to be capable of a double sense. The second
Psalm has been supposed to refer both to David and Christ, and
Isa. vii, 14-16, to a child born of a virgin who lived in the time of
the prophet, and also to the Messiah. Psalms xlv and lxxii have
been supposed to have a double reference to Solomon and Christ, and
the prophecy against Edom in Isa. xxxiv, 5-10, to comprehend also
the general judgment of the last day.2 But it should be seen that
in the case of types the language of the Scripture has no double
sense. The types themselves are such because they prefigure
things to come, and this fact must be kept distinct from the ques¬
tion of the sense of language used in any particular passage. We
have shown above (pp. 399, 400) that the language of Psa. ii is not
applicable to David or Solomon, or any other earthly ruler. The
same may be said of Psalms xlv and lxxii. Isa. vii, 14 was fulfilled
in the birth of Jesus Christ (Matt, i, 22), and no expositor has ever
been able to prove a previous fulfilment.3 The oracle against Edom
1 Hints on the Interpretation of Prophecy, p. 14. Andover, 1842.
2 See Davidson’s Hermeneutics, pp. 49, 50. Woodhouse on the Apocalypse, pp.
172— 174. Horne, Introduction, vol. ii, pp. 404-408.
3 It is not impossible, however, that such an event occurred in the days of Ahaz,
and served, in its way, as a type of the birth of Jesus from the Virgin Mary. But
upon this supposition the language of the passage would have no double sense, and
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
495
(Isa. xxxiv, 5-10), like that against Babylon (Isa. xii), is clothed in
the highly wrought language of apocalyptic prophecy, and gives no
warrant to the theory of a double sense. The twenty-fourth of
Matthew, so commonly relied on to support this theory, has been
already shown to furnish no valid evidence of either an occult or a
double sense.
Some plausibility is given to the theory by adducing the sug¬
gestive fulness of some parts of the prophetic Scrip- The suggestive
tures. Such fulness is readily admitted, and ever to be Julness of ScriP-
J ’ ture no proof of
extolled. The first prophecy is a good example. The a double sense,
enmity between the seed of the woman and that of the serpent
(Gen. iii, 15) has been exhibited in a thousand forms. The precious
words of promise to God’s people find more or less fulfilment in
every individual experience. But these facts do not sustain the
theory of a double sense. The sense in every case is direct and
simple; the applications and illustrations are many. Such facts give
no authority for us to go into apocalyptic prophecies with the. ex¬
pectation of finding two or more meanings in each specific state¬
ment, and then to declare: This verse refers to an event long past,
this to something yet future; this had a partial fulfilment in the
ruin of Babylon, or Edom, but it awaits a grander fulfilment in the
future. The judgment of Babylon, or Nineveh, or Jerusalem, may,
indeed, be a type of every other similar judgment, and is a warn¬
ing to all nations and ages; but this is very different from say¬
ing that the language in which that judgment wras predicted was
fulfilled only partially when Babylon, or Nineveh, or Jerusalem
fell, and is yet awaiting its complete fulfilment.
We have already seen that the Bible has its riddles, enigmas,
and dark sayings, but whenever they are given the context clearly
advises us of the fact. To assume, in the absence of any hint, that
we have an enigma, and in the face of explicit statements to the
contrary, that any specific prophecy has a double sense, a primary
and a secondary meaning, a near and a remote fulfilment, must
necessarily introduce an element of uncertainty and confusion into
biblical interpretation.
The same may be said about explicit designations of time. When a
writer says that an event will shortly and speedily come No misleading
to pass, or is about to take place, it is contrary to all pro- ^(finTropb-
priety to declare that his statements allow us to believe ecy.
the event is in the far future. It is a reprehensible abuse of lan¬
guage to say that the words immediately , or near at hand, mean
its fulfilment in the birth of Jesus would be like the fulfilment of Hosea xi, 1 in the
return of the child Jesus out of Egypt.
496
PRINCIPLES OF
ages hence , or after a long time. Such a treatment of the language
of Scripture is even worse than the theory of a double sense. And
yet interpreters have appealed *to 2 Peter iii, 8 as furnishing in¬
spired authority to disregard designations of time in prophecy.
“Let not this one thing be hid from you, beloved, that one day
with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one
day.” This statement, it is urged, is made with direct reference to
the time of the Lord’s coming, and illustrates the arithmetic of
God, in which soon , quiclclg , and similar terms may denote ages.
A careful attention to this passage, however, will show that it
teaches no such strange doctrine as this.
The language in question is a poetical citation from Psa. xc, 4,
and is adduced to show that the lapse of time does not
A thousand . _ ,TT1 , ,
years as one invalidate the promises of God. Whatever he has
day* pledged will come to pass, however men may think
or talk about his tardiness. Days and years and ages do not affect
him. From everlasting to everlasting he is God (Psa. xc, 2).
But this is very different from saying that when the everlasting
God promises something shortly , and declares that it is close at
hand , he may mean that it is a thousand years in the future.
Whatever he has promised indefinitely he may take a thousand
years or more to fulfil; but what he affirms to be at the door let no
man declare to be far away. “It is surely unnecessary,” says a
recent writer, “to repudiate in the strongest manner such a non¬
natural method of interpreting the language of Scripture. It is
worse than ungrammatical and unreasonable, it is immoral. It is
to suggest that God has two weights and two measures in his deal¬
ings with men, and that in his mode of reckoning there is an am¬
biguity and variableness which makes it impossible to tell what
manner of time the Spirit of Christ in the prophets x ay signify.
It seems to imply that a day may not mean a day, nor a thousand
years a thousand years, but that either may mean the other. If
this were so, there could be no interpretation of prophecy possible;
it would be deprived of all precision, and even of all credibility;
for it is manifest that if there could be such ambiguity and uncer¬
tainty in respect to time, there might be no less ambiguity and un¬
certainty in respect to every thing else. . . . Faithfulness is one
of the attributes most frequently ascribed to the covenant-keeping
God, and the divine faithfulness is that which the apostle in this
very passage affirms. To the taunt of the scoffers who impugn the
faithfulness of God, and ask, 4 Where is the promise of his com¬
ing?’ he answers, ‘the Lord is not slack concerning his promises as
some men count slackness.’ Long or short, a day or an age, dues
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
49?
not affect his faithfulness. He keepeth truth forever. But the
apostle does not say that when the Lord promises a thing for to¬
day he may not fulfil his promise for a thousand years: that would
be slackness ; that would be a breach of promise. lie does not say
that because God is infinite and everlasting, therefore he reckons
with a different arithmetic from ours, or speaks to as in a double
sense, or uses two different weights and measures in his dealings
with mankind. The very reverse is the truth.” 1
As an illustration of the fallacious and confusing theory of a
double sense, especially when applied to prophetic des- Fallacies of
ignations of time, witness tne following from Bengel. or^of prophet!
Commenting on the words, “Immediately after the ic perspective,
tribulation of those days,” in Matt, xxiv, 29, he says: “You will
say it is a great leap from the destruction of Jerusalem to the end
of the world which is subjoined to it immediately. I reply, a
prophecy resembles a landscape painting which represents distinctly
the houses, paths, and bridges in the foreground, but brings to¬
gether, into a narrow space, most widely severed valleys and moun¬
tains in the distance. Such a view should they who study proph¬
ecy have of the future to which the prophecy refers. And the
eyes of the disciples, who in their question had connected the end
of the temple with that of the world, are left somewhat in the
dark (for it was not yet time to know, ver. 36); hence they after¬
ward, with entire harmony, imitated the Lord’s language, and de¬
clared that the end was at hand. By advancing, however, both the
prophecy and the prospect continually reveal a further and still
further distance. In this manner also we ought to interpret, not
the clear by the obscure, but the obscure by the clear, and to re¬
vere in its dark sayings the divine wisdom which sees all things
always, but does not reveal all things at once. Afterward it was
revealed that antichrist should come before the end of the world;
and again Paul joined these two things closely, until the Apocalypse
placed even millenniums between. On such passages there rests, as
St. Anthony used to call it, a prophetical cloudlet. It was not yet
time to reveal the whole series of future events from the destruc¬
tion of Jerusalem to the end of the world.”2
Here, we may say, are almost as many fallacies, or misleading
statements, as there are sentences. The figure of a land- Ag many falla_
scape painting with its principles of perspective is a cies as sen-
favourite illustration with those expositors who advo- ences'
1 The Parousia, pp. 221-223.
2 Gnomon of the New Testament, in loco. Lewis and Vincent’s translation. Phil¬
adelphia, 1860.
32
403
PRINCIPLES OF
cate the theory of a double sense, and some, who reject such tne-
orv, employ this figure t<> illustrate the uncertainty of prophetic
designations of time. But it is a great error to apply this illus¬
tration to specific designations of time. Where no particular time
is indicated, or where time-limitations are kept out of view, the
figure may be allowed, and is, indeed, a happy illustration. But
when the Lord says that certain events are to follow immediately
after certain other events, let no interpreter presume to say that mil¬
lenniums may come between. This is not “ to interpret tne obscure
by the clear,” but to obscure the clear by a misleading fancy. To
say that “ the eyes of the disciples were left in the dark,” and that
they afterward, “imitating the Lord’s language, declared that the
end was at hand,” is virtually equivalent to saying that Jesus misled
them, and that they went forth and perpetuated the error ! The
notion that any portion of Scripture “ reveals the whole series
of events from the destruction of Jerusalem to the end of the
world,” is a fancy of modern interpreters, who would ail do well,
like the pious Bengel, to confess that over their forced method
of explaining the statements of Christ and the apostles there truly
rests an obscuring “ prophetical cloudlet.”
There are, indeed, manifold applications of certain prophecies
Practical ap- which may be called generic, and some events of mod-
prophecy may ern histoiT may illustrate them, and, in a broad sense,
be many. fulfil them as truly as the events to which they had
original reference. In the days of John many antichrists had ap¬
peared (1 John ii, 18; comp. Matt, xxiv, 5, 24), and the demoniacal
attributes of Paul’s “ man of sin ” (2 Thess. ii, 3-8) may appear
again and again in monsters of lawlessness and crime. Antiochus
and Nero are definite typical illustrations in whom great prophecies
were specifically fulfilled, but other similar impersonations of wick¬
edness may also have revealed the beast from the abyss, which was,
and then, after disappearing for a time, appeared again, and then
again went *into perdition (Rev. xvii, 8). But such allowable ap¬
plications of prophecy are not to be confounded with grammatico-
historical interpretation. When Satan shall be loosed out of his
prison after the millennium (Rev. xx, 7) he may, indeed, reveal
himself in some man of sin more fearful and more lawless far than
any Antiochus or Nero of the past.
It may, in truth, be said that a large proportion of the confusion
and errors of biblical expositors has arisen from mistaken notions
of the Bible itself.1 No such confusion and diversity of views ap-
1 This thought is made prominent in Hofman’s valuable work, Biblische Herme-
neutik. Nordlingen, 1880.
499
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
pear in the interpretation of other books. A strained and unnatu¬
ral theory of divine inspiration has, doubtless, led many
into the habit of assuming that somehow the Scriptures Mon^of the b£
must be explained differently from other compositions ble itseIf the
xience, also, the assumption that in prophetic revela- false exposi¬
tions God has furnished us with a detailed historical tlon*
outline of particular occurrences ages in advance, so that we may
properly expect to find such events as the rise of Islam, the Wars
of the Roses, and the French Revolution recorded in the prophet¬
ical books. This assumption is often found attaching itself to "he
theory of a double or triple sense. The interpretation of the Apoc¬
alypse of John has especially suffered from this singular error.
Fheie is such a charm in the fancy that we have a New Testament
prophecy of the events of all coming time — a graphic outline of
the history of the Church and the world until the final judgment —
that not a few have yielded to the delusion that we may reasonably
search this mystic book for any character or event which we deem
important in the history of human civilization.1
W e must set aside these false assumptions touching the Bible it¬
self, and the ’character and purport of its prophecies. A rational
investigation of the scope and analogies of the great prophecies
gives no support to such extravagant fancies as that “ the whole
Apocalypse of John, from chapter iv to the end, is but a develop¬
ment of Daniel’s imperfect tense.”2 The Holy Scriptures have
lessons for all time. God’s specific revelation to one individual,
age, or nation will be found to have a practical value for all men.
We need no specific predictions of Napoleon, or of the W&ldenses,
or of the martyrdom of John Huss, or of the massacre of St. Bar¬
tholomew to confirm the faith of the Church, or to convince the
infidel; else, doubtless, we should have had them in a form capa¬
ble of producing conviction. It cannot be shown that such pre¬
dictions would have accomplished any worthy purpose not already
met by fulfilled prophecies with their practical lessons of universal
application.
1 A friend of the writer once observed : It always seemed strange to me that Baby¬
lon, and Persia, and Greece, and Rome, and European states should be noticed in the
prophecies, and yet no mention of the United States of America. He, accordingly,
set himself to work to find something on the subject, and by and by discovered the
great North American Republic in the fifth kingdom of Daniel — the stone cut out of
the mountain without hands. Further research in the same line soon enabled him
to see that the “ war in heaven ” between Michael and the dragon (Rev. xii, 7) was a
specific prophecy of the late civil war between the Northern and Southern States,
which resulted in the abolition of American slavery.
2 Pre-Millennial Essays of the Prophetic Conference, p. 326. New York, 1879.
500
PRINCIPLES OF
CHAPTER XXVHI.
SCRIPTURE QUOTATIONS IN THE SCRIPTURES.
In comparing Scripture with Scripture, and tracing the parallel and
analogous passages of the several sacred writers, the interpreter
continually meets with quotations, more or less exact, made by one
writer from another. These quotations may be distributed into
Four classes Of four classes: (1) Old Testament parallel passages and
quotations. quotations made by the later writers from the earlier
books ; (2) New Testament quotations from the Old Testament ;
(3) New Testament quotations from New Testament sources; and
(4) quotations from apocryphal writings and oral tradition. The
verbal variations of many of these citations, the formulas and
methods of quotation, and the illustrations they furnish of the pur¬
poses and uses of the Holy Scriptures, are all matters of great im¬
portance to the biblical exegete.
As examples of each of these classes of citations we mention,
Examples of first, genealogical tables, as Gen. xi, 10-26, compared
tationsandpar- 1 Chron. i, 17-27, and Gen. xlvi compared with
aiieis. Num. xxvi. Psa. xviii is substantially identical with
2 Sam. xxii. The same is true of 2 Kings xviii-xx and Isa. xxxvi-
xxxix, 2 Kings xxiv, xxv, and Jer. lii. Large portions of the Books
of Samuel and Kings are appropriated in the Books of Chronicles,
and there are numerous textual parallels like Psa. xlii, 7, and Jonah
ii, 3. The New Testament quotations from the Old Testament are
manifold in character and form. In most cases they are taken ver¬
batim, or nearly so, from the Septuagint version ; in some instances
they are a translation of the Hebrew text, more accurate than that
of the Septuagint (Matt, ii, 15, compared with Heb. and Sept, of
Hos. xi, 1 ; Matt, viii, 17, comp. Isa. liii, 4). Some of the quota¬
tions differ notably both from the Hebrew and the Septuagint,
while others were apparently constructed by a use of both sources.
Sometimes several passages of the Old Testament are blended to¬
gether, as. in 2 Cor. vi, 16-18, where use is made of Exod. xxix, 45 ;
Lev. xxvi, 12; Isa. lii, 11; Jer. xxxi, 1, 9, 33; xxxii, 38; Ezek.
xi, 20; xxxvi, 28; xxxvii, 27; Zech. viii, 8. Sometimes the Old
Testament passage is merely paraphrased, or the general sentiment
or substance is given, while in other cases it is merely referred to
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
501
or hinted at (comp. Prov. xviii, 4 ; Isa. xii, 3 ; xliv, 3, with John
vii, 38. Isa. lx, 1-3, with Eph. v, 14. Hos. xiv, 2, with Heb. xiii, 15). 1
In the New Testament it is evident that the many parallel portions
of the Gospels must have been derived from some common source,
either oral or written, or both. In Acts xx, 35, Paul quotes a say¬
ing of the Lord which is to be found nowhere else. Peter evinces
a knowledge of the epistles of Paul (2 Pet. iii, 15, 16), and in the
second chapter of his second epistle appropriates much from the
Epistle of Jude. Finally, the quotations from apocry¬
phal and other sources, and allusions to them, both in and°tStional
the Old Testament and in the New, are quite numerous. sources*
Thus, in the Old Testament we have “ The Book of the Wars of the
Lord” (Num. xxi, 14), “The Book of Jasher” (Josh, x, 13), “The
Book of the Acts of Solomon” (1 Kings xi, 41), “The Book of
Shemaiah” (2 Chron. xii, 15), and numerous others quoted or re¬
ferred to. Jude quotes apparently from the pseudepigraphal Book
of Enoch, and also makes allusion to traditions of the fall of the
angels, and the dispute of Michael and the devil over the body of
Moses (Jude 6, 9, 14). St. Paul calls the magicians, who opposed
Moses, Jannes and Jambres (2 Tim. iii, 8), names which had proba¬
bly been transmitted by oral tradition. Many such traditions found
their way into the Targums, the Talmud, and the apocryphal and
pseudepigraphal Jewish literature. Quotations from such books
and allusions to such traditions give them no canonical authority.
An apostle or any one else, addressing those who were familiar with
6iich traditions, might appropriately refer to them for homiletical
purposes, without thereby designing to assume or declare their
verity. Similarly Paul quotes from the Greek poets Aratus, Me¬
nander, and Epimenides (Acts xvii, 28; 1 Cor. xv, 33; Titus i, 12).
The great number of parallel passages, both in the Old Testament
and in the New, is evidence of a harmony and organic relation of
Scripture with Scripture of a most notable kind. Once written, the
oracles of God became the public and private treasure of his people.
Any passage that would serve a useful purpose was used by prophet
1 See Drusius, Parallela Sacra, etc., in vol. viii of the Critici Sacri, pp. 1261--1325;
Davidson, Sacred Hermeneutics, chap, xi ; Gough, New Testament Quotations Collated
with the Old Testament (Lond., 1S53); Horne’s Introduction (Ayers and Tregelles’
Ed.), vol. ii, pp. 113-207; and especially Turpie, The Old Testament in the New; A
Contribution to Biblical Criticism and Interpretation. Lond., 1868. This last-named
work conveniently classifies and tabulates the Old Testament quotations in the New
Testament according to their agreement with, or variation from, both the Hehrew text
and the Septuagint version. Comp, also Scott, Principles of New Testament Quota¬
tion established and applied to Biblical Science (Edinb., 1875), and Boehl, Die alttesta-
mentlichen Citate im neuen Testament. Wien, 1878.
502
PRINCIPLES OF
or apostle as part of a common heritage. With this understanding,
there is little in the matter or style of the Scripture quotations in
the Scriptures to give any trouble to the interpreter.
Only the 0. T. ^ .. / .
quotations in Ihe comparison of parallel passages is, as we nave seen
8pedaiT’hermer (PP- 221-230), a great help in exposition, and some pas-
neuticai treat- sages become clear and forcible only when read in the
light of their parallels. The alleged discrepancies be¬
tween these different Scriptures will be noticed in a separate chap¬
ter; it is only the Old Testament citations in the New Testament
which call for special treatment here. These, as we have said, are
80 manifold in character and form that we should examine (1) the
sources of quotation, (2) the formulas and methods of quotation,
and (3) the purposes of the several quotations.
I. It is now generally conceded that the sources from which the
Sources of n. t. New Testament writers quote are the Hebrew text of
quotation. the Old Testament, and the Septuagint translation of it.
Formerly it was maintained by some that the Septuagint only was
used; others, feeling that such a position was disparaging to the
Hebrew Scriptures, maintained as strenuously that the apostles and
evangelists must have always cited from the Hebrew, and though
the quotations were in the exact words of the Septuagint, it was
thought that two translators might have used the same language.
But calmer study has made all such discussions obsolete. It is well
known that the Septuagint version was in current use among the
Hellenistic Jews. The New Testament writers follow it in some
passages where it differs widely from the Hebrew. A critical com¬
parison of all the New Testament citations from the Old shows be¬
yond a question that in the great majority of cases the Septuagint
rather than the Hebrew text was the source from which the writers
quoted.1 2
But it is noticeable that the New Testament writers do not uni-
No uniform ^orm^y follow either source. The Sep’.uagint version
method of quo- of Mai. iii, 1, is an accurate translation of the Hebrew,
but Matthew, Mark, and Luke agree literally in a ren¬
dering which is noticeably different.3 In short, it is impossible to
discover any rule that will account for all the variations between
the citations and the Hebrew and Septuagint texts. Sometimes the
1 See Horne’s Introduction, vol. ii, pp. 114-1 78. where the Hebrew, the Septuagint
version, and the New Testament citation of all the Old Testament quotations in the
New, are given in the original texts, arranged in parallel columns, and each accom¬
panied by an English version.
2 Matt, xi, 10; Mark i, 10; Luke vii, 2*7. Matthew inserts eyo, and Mark omits
tylKpOO&EV GUV.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
503
variation is merely a change of person, number, or tense; some¬
times it consists of a transposition of words; sometimes in the
omission or addition of words and phrases. In many cases only the
general sense is given, and often the citation is but an allusion or
reference, not a formal quotation at all. In view of all these facts
it seems best to understand that the sacred writers followed no
uniform method in quoting the older Scriptures. They were famil¬
iar both with the Hebrew text and the Septuagint. But textual
accuracy had no special weight with them. From childhood the
contents of the sacred writings had been publicly and privately
made known to them (2 Tim. iii, 15), and they were wont to cite
them in familiar discourse without any attempt at verbal accuracy.
With them as with us an inaccurate quotation might be¬
come common and current on the lips of the people, and, tationTmay1^
while known by many to differ from the ancient text, 001116 current,
was nevertheless sufficiently correct for all practical purposes. How
few of us now recite the Lord’s prayer accurately? So, doubtless,
the inspired writers made use of Scripture, in many instances, with¬
out care to conform the quotation wdth the exact letter of the
Hebrew text, or of the common Septuagint version. They quoted
probably in most cases from memory, and the Holy Spirit pre¬
served them from any vital error (John xiv, 26). The idea that
divine inspiration must necessitate verbal uniformity among the
sacred wrriters is an unnecessary and untenable assumption.1 Vari¬
ety marked both the portions and manner of the successive revela¬
tions of God (Heb. i, 1).
II. The introductory formulas by wffiicli quotations from the Old
Testament are adduced are many and various, and have „
J ’ Formulas and
been thought by some to be a sort of index or key to methods of
the particular purpose of each citation. But we find (*uotatlon-
different formulas used by different writers to introduce one and the
1 “ In examining cited passages, we perceive,” says Davidson, “ that every mode of
quotation has been employed, from the exactest to the most loose, from the strictest
verbal method to the widest paraphrase. But in no case is violence done to the
meaning of the original. A sentiment expressed in one connexion in the Old Testa¬
ment is frequently in the New interwoven with another train of argument ; but this is
allowable and natural. . . . Let it be remembered, then, that the sacred writers were
not bound in all cases to cite the very words of the originals ; it was usually sufficient
for them to exhibit the sense perspicuously. The same meaning may be conveyed by
different terms. It is unreasonable to expect that the apostles should scrupulously
abide by the precise words of the passage they quote. ... In every instance we sup¬
pose them to have been directed by the superintending Spirit, who infallibly kept them
from error, and guided them in selecting the most appropriate terms where their own
judgments would have failed.” — Sacred Hermeneutics, pp. 469, 470.
504
PRINCIPLES OF
same passage, so that we cannot suppose that in all cases the
formula used will direct us to the special purpose of the quotation.
The more usual formulas are, “ It is written,” “ Thus it is written,”
“According as it is written,” “The Scripture says,” “It was said,”
“According as it is said;” but many other forms are used. The
same formulas are used by the Rabbinical writers,1 and there is
every reason to believe that they exhibit a common usage of our
Lord’s time. There was no division of chapters and verses to facil¬
itate reference. Occasionally the place of a citation is indicated,
as in Mark xii, 26; Acts xiii, 33; and Rom. xi, 2; but more fre¬
quently Moses, the Law, Isaiah, Jeremiah, or some other prophet is
1 The following list exhibits in parallel columns the resemblance between the New
Testament and Rabbinical formulas :
New Testament.
tcaduc yeypanrai, ovtcj yh/paxTai, yeypar r-
rat, yeypappivov tori, /card to ykypau
(IEVOV.
Kftdug dprjTai , Kara to elpiyzevov.
kppkOi 7.
IpfeOr) tolq apxatoig.
XeysL 77 ypa<p*/, dire 77 ypa6rj.
ri yap XkyEL 7] ypacprj ; t'l ovv egtl to ye-
ypappevov ; ttuq ysypairraL ; ovk.egtl ye-
ypapu£vov ;
did XkyEL.
Slots Trepieyei kv rij ypa(, pr/.
PXettets to eiprjpevov.
Trdif avayivuGKEig ;
TTpoiSovaa rd 77 ypa6fj.
Kai ttuXlv XsyeL, ical TcaXiv , Trd?uv yeypaTT-
Tai , Kal kv tovtu) ttclalv , Kai kv tovtl> Xe-
ysL, Kal iraXiv ETepa ypaprj Xeyetv.
6 Aoyof yeypappLEvor kv rCp vopip avTuv.
6 vopos tXsysv.
avrog yap AaSiti elitev.
iva Tc?i,r/po)0ri 7/ ypatyrj, or to jbrjOev did tov
7r potpr/Tov.
kvXrjpuOr) 77 ypa<p7j.
Rabbinical.
Trim, Tim zrnrrD.
1 BKJG?
■ovn.
(D'WNl) D'jpT, 1-ION I'ND-ip,
etc.
airon -ion, or Nip ion.
TIUTI 'NO, 3TD "O, etc.
mron vpy
ly^Do N-ipo, or nq-an.
ITID no HN1.
nNip 'no,
Tran hn-i no, etc.
Tnarn'na, onn ym ndh 2m
mra TnanoNiP, mjn ioin, etc.
min inn, or nmnn mnrj*
moN nmnn.
in -ion p.
-mdnjg? no D"pi?.
2TDE? no D"p nr.
“ It Is impossible,” says Davidson, from whom the above list is taken, “ for any
unprejudiced reader to observe the coincidence between the New Testament and Rab¬
binical formulas just given without believing that the one class was influenced and
modified by the other. When we recollect that the writers were Jews, and that their
modes of conception and speech were essentially Jewish, we are led to expect in
their compositions a large assimilation to current phraseology.”— Sacred Hermeneu¬
tics, pp. 449, 450. Many other examples are given by Surenhusius, nitJOn HD, sive
Bi,3Xng KaA«?i./lay^f,pp. 1-36; and by Dopke, Hermeneutik, pp. 60—69.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
rm
mentioned as writing or saying what is quoted. It is assumed that
the persons addressed were so familiar with the holv writings that
they needed no more specific reference.
a Besides the quotations introduced by these formulas there are a
considerable number scattered through the writings of the apostles
which are inserted in the train of their own remarks without any
announcement whatever of their being cited from others. To the
cursory reader the passages thus quoted appear to form a part of
the apostle’s own words, and it is only by intimate acquaintance
with the Old Testament Scriptures, and a careful comparison of
these with those of the New Testament, that the fact of their being
quotations can be detected. In the common version every trace of
quotation is in many of these passages lost, from the circumstance
that the writer has closely followed the Septuagint, while our ver¬
sion of the Old Testament is made from the Hebrew. Thus, for
instance, in 2 Cor. viii, 21, Paul says, rcQovoovgev ydp aaXa ov
tiovov evo)7uov Kvqlov , dAAd tial evumov avtipurcGW, which, with a
change in the mood of the verb, is a citation of the Septuagint ver¬
sion of Prov. iii, 4. Hardly any trace of this, however, appears in
the common version, where the one passage reads, “Providing for
honest things not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the
sight of men; ” and the other, “So shalt thou find favour and good
understanding in the sight of God and man.” So, also, in 1 Peter
iv, 18, the apostle quotes word for word from the Septuagint ver¬
sion of Prov. xi, 31, the clause el 6 dlfcaiog goXu; a o)^erai, 6 daeSr^
Kai d/LiapTG)?idg ttov fyavelrai ; a quotation which we should in vain
endeavour to trace in the common version of the Proverbs, where
the passage in question is rendered “Behold, the righteous shall be
recompensed in the earth; much more the wicked and the sinner.”
Such quotations evidently show how much the minds of the New
Testament writers were imbued with the sentiments and expressions
of the Old Testament as exhibited in the Alexandrine version.” 1
There is one formula peculiar to Matthew and John which de¬
serves more than a passing qotice. It first occurs in The formula
Matt, i, 22: “ All this has come to pass in order that Lva ^vp^v-
what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be ful¬
filled” This is its fullest form; elsewhere it is only lva nXrjpGiSg,
in order that it might be fulfilled (Matt, ii, 15; iv, 14; xxi, 4; John
xii, 38; xiii, 1H; xv, 25; xvii, 12; xviii, 9, 32; xix, 24, 36), but in
John’s Gospel these words vary in their connexion, as, “in order
that the word of Isaiah might be fulfilled;” “in order that the
Scripture might be fulfilled;” “in order that the word of Jesus
1 Alexander, in Kitto’s New Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature, article Quotations.
506
PRINCIPLES OF
might be fulfilled.” Sometimes it is written Snog nlrjQoy&^j (Matt,
ii, 23; viii, 17; xii, 17), and occasionally tots eirhrjQGidr), then was
fulfilled. The great question with interpreters has been to deter¬
mine the force of the conjunction Iva (and Snug) in these formulas.
Is it telic, that is, expressive of final cause , purpose , or design ; or
is it ecbatic, denoting merely the outcome or result of something ?
If telic, it should be translated in order that ; if ecbatic, it should be
rendered so that.
Bengel, commenting on ihe words iva nhrjwd'q in Matt, i, 22, ob-
Views Of Ben- serves: “ Wherever this phrase occurs we are bound to
gel ana Meyer, recognise the authority of the evangelists, and (how¬
ever dull our own perception may be) to believe that the event they
mention does not merely chance to correspond with some ancient
form of speech, but was one which had been predicted, and which
the divine truth was pledged to bring to pass at the commencement
of the new dispensation.” 1 Meyer, commenting on the same pas¬
sage, observes: “ iva is never ecbatic, so that , but always telic, in
order that / it presupposes here that what was done stood in the
connexion of purpose with the Old Testament declaration, and con¬
sequently in the connexion of the divine necessity as an actual fact
by which the prophecy was destined to be fulfilled. The divine
decree, expressed in the latter, must be accomplished, and to that
end this , namely, which is related from verse 18 onward, came to
pass , and that, according to the whole of its contents (o/lov).”
This view of the telic force of Iva , especially in the words Iva
The telic force in connexion with prophetic statements, is
ally tobe^main- maintained by many of the most eminent critics and
tamed. scholars, as Fritzsche, De Wette, Olshausen, Alford,
and Winer. Others, as Tittmann, Stuart, and Robinson, contend for
the ecbatic use of iva in this phrase as well as in many other pas¬
sages.2 The question can be determined only by a critical exami¬
nation of the passages where the alleged ecbatic use of the particle
occurs. In most of these cases we believe the ordinary telic sense
of Iva has been misapprehended by a superficial view of the real
import of the passage. Thus Tittmann cites Mark xi, 25, as a clear
instance of the ecbatic use of Iva : “ Whenever ye stand praying,
f oi-give, if ye have aught against any one, in order that your Fa¬
ther also who is in the heavens may forgive you your trespasses.”
1 Gnomon of the New Testament, in loco.
2 See Tittmann’s essay on the “ Use of the particle Iva in the New Testament,”
translated into English with introductory remarks by M. Stuart in the Biblical Repos¬
itory of Jan.,. 1835. Also Robinson’s Lexicon of the New Testament under the w'ords
Iva and ottuq.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
007
According to Tittmann, “ the Saviour could not inculcate on his
disciples the mere prudential duty of forgiving others in order that
they themselves might obtain forgiveness, which would be quite
foreign to real integrity and purity of mind ; but he wished them to
consider that if they cherished an implacable spirit they could have
no grounds to hope for pardon from God; so that if they them¬
selves were not ready to forgive it was impossible that they should
obtain forgiveness.” 1 But this reasoning would exclude every¬
where the telic force of Iva. According to the writer’s own admis¬
sion, the forgiving of others is an indispensable condition of pardon ;
why not then regard this condition, as well as any other, in the
light of a means to an end? Is it possible to believe that obtain¬
ing forgiveness from God is an object and aim at all inconsistent
with “ real integrity and purity of mind ? ” Much more soundly
does Meyer give the real thought of the passage: “To the exhorta¬
tion to confidence in prayer Jesus links on another principal requi¬
site of being heard — namely, the necessity of forgiving in order to
obtain forgiveness.” 2 The forgiving is presented as an indispensa¬
ble means to an end.
It need not, however, be denied that in some passages the ecbatic
rendering of Iva may bring out more clearly the sense The eCbatie
of the author. The particle may be allowed some meas-
ure of its native telic import, and yet the final cause or cases be de¬
end may be conceived of as an accomplished result oi
attainment rather than an objective ideal necessary to be reached.3
Ellicott’s position may be accepted as every way sound and satis¬
factory: “ The uses of Iva in the New Testament appear to be three:
(1 ) Final, or indicative of the end , purpose , or object of the action
—the primary and principal meaning, and never to be given up
except on the most distinct counter arguments. (2) Sub-final , occa¬
sionally, especially after verbs of entreaty (not of command), the
subject of the prayer being blended with, and even in some cases
obscuring, the purpose of making it. (3) Eventual, or indicative of
result, apparently in a few cases, and due, perhaps, more to what
is called ‘Hebrew teleology’ (i. e., the reverential aspect under
which the Jews regarded prophecy and its fulfilment) than giam-
matical depravation.” 4
1 Biblical Repository for Jan., 1835, p. 105.
2 Critical Commentary on Mark xi, 25.
3 Comp. Winer’s New' Testament Grammar (English translation, Andover, 1874), pp.
457-461, and Buttmann’s Grammar of the New Testament Greek (English translation,
Andover, 1873), pp. 235-241.
4 Critical and Grammatical Commentary on Ephesians i, 17.
,08
PRINCIPLES OF
But when the words Iva n?,rjQG)$y are used in connexion with the
iva teiic in fulfilment of prophecy we should not hesitate to accept
formulas of ^elic force 0f iva The Scriptures themselves recog-
prophetic cita- e r °
tion. nise a sort of divine necessity for the fulfilment of all
that predicted or typified the Christ. As it was necessary ( edei )
for the Christ to suffer (Luke xxiv, 26), so “it was necessary that
all things which were written in the law of Moses, and the Prophets,
and the Psalms concerning him should be fulfilled” (Luke xxiv, 44;
comp, the edei nXrjgcj^vai of Acts i, 16). The objection that it is
absurd to suppose all these things were done merely to fulfil a
prophecy is based upon a misconception and misrepresentation of the
evangelist. The statement that this particular divine purpose was
served does not imply that no other divine purpose was accom
plished. “ All these things did transpire,” says W hedon, “ in order,
among other purposes, to the fulfilment of that prophecy, inasmuch
as the fulfilment of that prophecy was at the same time the accom¬
plishment of the Incarnation of the Redeemer, and the verification
of the divine prediction. Nor is there any predestinarian fatalism
in all this. God predicts what he foresees that men will freely do;
and then men do freely in turn fulfil what God predicts, and so un¬
consciously act in order to verify God’s veracity. Moreover there
is no fatalism in supposing that God has high plans which he does
with infinite wisdom carry out through the free, unnecessitated,
though foreseen wills of men. Such is his inconceivable wisdom
that he can so place free agents in a free system of probation that
which ever way they freely turn they will but further his great
generic plans and verify his foreknowledge. So that it may, in a
right sense, be true that all these things are done by free agents in
order to so desirable an end as to fulfil the divine foresight.” 1
The passage in Matt, ii, 15, has been thought by many to be a
Hosea xi, i, as certain instance of the ecbatic usage of iva. It is there
cited in Matt, written that Joseph arose and took the child Jesus and
his mother by night and withdrew into Egypt, and was
there until the death of Herod, “in order that ( Iva tt A^pwd^) it
might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the
prophet, saying, Out of Egypt I called my son.” The quotation is
a literal translation of the Hebrew of IIos xi, 1, and the reference
of the prophet is to Israel. The whole verse of Hos. xi, 1, reads
thus: “For a child was Israel, and I loved him, and out of Egypt I
called my son.” Here some would see a double sense of prophecy,
and others an Old Testament text accommodated to a New Testa¬
ment use. But the true interpretation of this quotation will recog-
1 Commentary on Matthew i, 22.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
509
nise the typical character of Israel as “ God’s firstborn,” a familiar
thought of the Old Testament Scripture. Thus, in Exod. iv, 22,
Jehovah is represented as saying: “My son, my firstborn, is Israel.”
And again in Jer. xxxi, 9: “For I have been to Israel for a father,
and Ephraim is my firstborn.” Compare also Isa. xlix, 3. Recog¬
nising this typical character of Israel as God’s firstborn son, the
evangelist readily perceived that the ancient exodus of Israel out
of Egypt was a type of this event in the life of the Son of God
while he was yet a child. Among the other purposes (and there
were doubtless many) that were served by this going down into
Egypt, and exodus therefrom, was the fulfilment of the prophecy of
Hosea. This fulfilment of typical events, as we have shown above
(p. 494), does not authorize the doctrine of a double sense in the
language of prophecy. The words of Hosea xi, 1, have but one
meaning, and announce in poetic form a fact of Israel’s ancient his¬
tory. That fact was a type which was fulfilled in the event re¬
corded in Matt, ii, but the language used by the prophet had no
previous fulfilment. It was not a prediction at all, but an allusion
to an event which occured six hundred years before Hosea was born.1
III. It remains to notice the purposes for which any of the sacred
writers quoted or referred to the more ancient Scrip- Purposesof
tures. Attention to this point will be an important aid Scripture quo¬
in enabling us to understand and appreciate the various tatlon*
uses of the holy writings.
1. The citation of many ancient prophecies was manifestly for
the purpose of showing and putting on record their fulfilment.
This is true of all the prophecies which are introduced with the
formula, tv a in order that it might he fulfilled. And the
same thought is implied in the context of quotations introduced by
1 Lange (Commentary on Matthew ii, 15) has the following: “As the flight and the
return had really taken place, the evangelist, whose attention was always directed to
the fulfilment of prophecy, might very properly call attention to the fact that even
this prediction of Hosea had been fuifi'led. And, in truth, viewed not as a verbal
but as a typical prophecy, this prediction wras fulfilled by this flight into Egypt. Is¬
rael of old was called out of Egypt as the son of God, inasmuch as Israel was identi¬
fied with the Son of God. But now the Son of God himself was called out of Egypt,
who came out of Israel, as the kernel from the husk. When the Lord called Israel
out. of Egypt, it was with special reference to his Son ; that is, in view of the high
spiritual place which Israel was destined to occupy. In connexion with this it is also
important to bear in mind the historical influence of Egypt on the world at large.
Ancient Greek civilization— nay, in a certain sense, the imperial power of Rome itself
_ sprung from Egypt ; in Egypt the science of Christian theology originated ; from
Egypt proceeded the last universal Conqueror ; out of Egypt came the typical son of
God to found the theocracy; and thence also the true’ Son of God to complete the
theocracy.”
510
PRINCIPLES OF
other formulas. These facts exhibit the interdependence and or¬
ganic connexion of the entire body of Holy Scripture. It is a
divinely constructed whole, and the essential relations of its several
parts must never be forgotten.
2. Other quotations are made for the purpose of establishing a
doctrine. So Paul, in Rom. iii, 9-19, quotes the Scriptures to prove
the universal depravity of man; and in Rom. iv, 3, he cites the
record of Abraham’s belief in God to show that a man is justified
by faith rather than works, and that faith is imputed unto him for
righteousness. This manner of his using the Old Pestament obvi
ously implies that the apostle and his readers regarded it as author¬
itative in its teachings. W^hat was written therein, or could be
confirmed thereby, was final, and must be accepted as the revela¬
tion of God.
3. Sometimes the Scripture is quoted for the purpose of confut¬
ing and rebuking opponents and unbelievers. Jesus himself ap¬
pealed to his Jewish opponents on the ground of their regard for
the Scriptures, and showed their inconsistency in refusing to receive
him of whom the Scriptures so abundantly testified (John v, 39, 40).
With those who accepted the Scripture as the word of God such
argumentation was of great weight. How effectually Jesus em¬
ployed it may be seen in his answers to the Sadducees and Phari¬
sees (Matt, xxii, 29-32, 41-46). Compare John x, 34-36.
4. Finally, the Scriptures were cited or referred to in a general
wiy as a book of divine authority, for rhetorical purposes, and for
illustration. Its manifold treasures were the heritage of the people
of God. Its language would be naturally appropriated to express
any thought or idea which a writer or speaker might wish to clothe
in sacred and venerable form. Hence the manners, references, allu:
sions, and citations which serve mainly to enhance the force or
beauty of a statement, and to illustrate some argument or appeal.
The writings of the Jewish prophets,” says Horne, “ which
abound in fine descriptions, poetical images, and sublime diction,
were the classics of the later Jews; and, in subsequent ages, all
their writers affected allusions to them, borrowed their images and
descriptions, and very often cited their identical words when re¬
cording any event or circumstance that happened in the history of
the persons whose lives they were relating, provided it was similar
and parallel to one that occurred at the times, and was described in
the books, of the ancient prophets.” 1
1 Introduction to the Holy Scriptures, vol. ii, p. 191.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
511
CHAPTER XXIX.
THE FALSE AND THE TRUE ACCOMMODATION.
Inasmuch as many passages of the Old Testament Scripture are
appropriated by New Testament writers for the sake of The rationaiis-
illustration, or by way of special application, it has been tfciiieory
held by many that all the Old Testament quotations, even the Mes¬
sianic prophecies, have been applied in the New Testament in a
sense differing more or less widely from their original import.
This especially has been a position taken by many rationalists of
Germany, and some have gone so far as to teach that our Lord ac¬
commodated himself to the prejudices of his age and people. Ills
use of Scripture, they tell us, was of the nature of argument and
appeal ad hominem • even his words and acts in regard to unclean
spirits of demons, and other matters of belief among the Jews,
were a falling in line with the errors and superstitions of the com¬
mon people.
Such a theory of accommodation should be utterly repudiated by
the sober and thoughtful exegete. It virtually teaches should be repu-
that Jesus Christ was a propagator of falsehood. It diated-
would convict every New Testament writer of a species of mental
and religious delusion. The divine Teacher did, indeed, accommo¬
date his teaching to the capacity of his hearers, as every wise
teacher will do; or, rather, he condescended to put himself on the
plane of their limited knowledge. He would speak so that men
might understand, and believe, and be saved. But in those who
had no disposition to search and test his truth he declared that
Isaiah’s words (Isa. vi, 9, 10) received a new application, and a most
significant fulfilment (Matt, xiii, 14, 15). And this was strictly
true. Isaiah’s words were first spoken to the dull and blinded hearts
of the Israel of his own day. Ezekiel repeated them with equal
propriety to the Israel of a later generation (Ezek. xii, 2). And
our Lord quoted and applied them to the Israel of his time as one
of those homiletic Scriptures which are fulfilled again and again in
human history when the faculties of spiritual perception become
perversely dull to the truths of God. The prophecy in question
was not the prediction of a specific event, but a general oracle of
God, and of such a nature as to be capable of repeated fulfilments.
512
PRINCIPLES OF
Hence such prophecies afford no proof of a double sense. The
sense is in each instance simple and direct, but the language is
capable of double or manifold applications.
And herein we observe a true sense in which the words of Serip-
. . . ture may be accommodated to particular occasions and
ofaccommoda- purposes. It is found in the manifold uses and applica¬
tions of which the words of divine inspiration are capa¬
ble. This is not, strictly speaking, a manifold fulfilmevit of Scrip¬
ture, though it may be affirmed that a forcible and legitimate
application of a passage is truly a fulfilment of it. When a given
passage is of such a character as to be susceptible of application to
other circumstances or subjects than those to which it first applied,
such secondary application should not be denied the name of a ful¬
filment. In such a case we do not say: The first reference was to
an event near at hand, but that primary fulfilment did not exhaust
the meaning; its higher fulfilment is to be seen in a future event.
Much truth may attach to such a statement, but it is liable 10 mis¬
lead one, and to foster the idea of a hidden sense, a mystic mean¬
ing, a so-called hyponoia (yirovoia,). Thus the psalmist says: “I
will open my mouth in a parable; I will utter dark sayings of old 55
(Psa. lxxviii, 2). This is quoted by Matthew (xiii, 35), the first
sentence according to the Septuagint, the second a free rendering
of the Hebrew, but following strictly neither the Hebrew nor the
Septuagint. The evangelist affirms that Jesus made use of parables
in order that these words might be fulfilled. And we are not at
liberty to deny that this was one real purpose of Jesus in the use of
parables. The words of the psalmist prophet herein found a new
and higher application, but in no different sense than that in which
they were first used.
The language of Jer. xxxi, 15, is quoted by Matthew (ii, 17, 18)
Jer. xxxi, is, as as keing fulfilled in the weeping and lamentation occa-
cited in’ Matt, sioned by Herod’s slaughter of the infants of Bethle¬
hem. In the highest strain of poetical conception the
prophet Jeremiah sets forth the grief of Israel’s woes and exile. It
seems to him as if the affectionate Rachel— the mother of the house
of Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh (Gen. xxx, 24; xli, 51, 52), and
the mother of Benjamin (Gen. xxxv, 16-18), might be heard weep¬
ing and wailing at Ramah over the loss of her children. The
prophet mentions Ephraim (Jer. xxxi, 18, 20) as the chief tribe and
i epresentative of all Israel. The tender mother’s agony is over a
wider woe than the exile of Judah only. It takes in Ephraim’s
overthrow and captivity as well. And Rachel, rather than Leah, is
named because of her great desire for children (Gen. xxx, 1), and
BIBLICAL IlEBMENEUTICS. 51S
the touching and melancholy circumstances of her death (Gen.
xxxv, 18). The weeping is represented as heard at Ramah, perhaps
for various reasons. That city occupied a conspicuous eminence 1
in the tribe-territory of Benjamin, whence the lamentation might
be conceived as sounding far and wide through all the coasts of
Benjamin and Judah.2 Ramah was the home of Hannah (the
mother of Samuel, 1 Sam. i, 19, 20), whose motherly yearning was
so much like that of Rachel.3 It was at Ramah also where the Jew¬
ish exiles were gathered before their deportation to Babylon (Jer.
xl, 1). The heart of Rachel, in the prophet’s view, was large
enough to feel and lament the woes of all the sons of Jacob. All
this comes up to the evangelist when he pens the slaughter of the
children of the coasts of Bethlehem (Matt, ii, 16). It seems to him
as if the motherly heart of Rachel cried from the tomb again, and
this later sorrow was but a repetition of that of the exile, the for¬
mer sorrow being a type of the latter. And this was a fulfilment
of that poetic prophecy, although it is not said that this sorrow of
Bethlehem came to pass in order to fulfil the words of Jeremiah.
By a true and legitimate accommodation the words of the prophet
were appropriated by the evangelist as enhancing his record of that
bitter woe. “By keeping in mind,” says Davidson, “the close re¬
lation of type and antitype, whether the former be a person, as Da¬
vid, or an event, as the' birth of a child, we shall not stumble at the
manner in which certain quotations in the New Testament are in-
troduced, nor have recourse to other modes of explanation which
seem to be objectionable. We do not adopt, with some, the hy¬
pothesis of a double sense, to which there are weighty objections.
Neither do we conceive that the principle of accommodation, in its
mildest form, comes up to the truth. The passages containing typ¬
ical prophecies have always a direct reference to facts or things in
the history of the persons or people obviously spoken of in the con¬
text. But these facts or circumstances were typical of spiritual
transactions in the history of the Saviour and his kingdom.” 4
1 Robinson’s Biblical Researches, vol. i, p. 576.
2 Comp. Keil, Commentary on Jeremiah xxxi, 15.
3 “ The prophet goes back in spirit,” says Nagelsbach, “ to the time when the in¬
habitants of the kingdom of the ten tribes were led away to Assyria into captivity.
The mother of the ruling tribe appears thus as the personification of the king¬
dom ruled by it. The spirit of Rachel is the genius of the kingdom of the ten tribes
whom the prophet represented by a bold poetical figure as rising from her tomb by
night and bewailing the misery of her children.” — Commentary on Jeremiah xxxi, 15.
4 Sacred Hermeneutics, p. 488.
33
534
PRINCIPLES OP
CHAPTER XXX.
ALLEGED DISCREPANCIES OF THE SCRIPTURES.
In comparing the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, and
_ , . also in examining the statements of the different writeis
acterof thedis- of either Testament, the readers attention is occasion-
erepancies. a]}y arrested by what appear to be contradictions.
Sometimes different passages of the same book present some notice¬
able inconsistency, but more frequently the statements made by
different writers exhibit discrepancies which some critics have been
hasty to pronounce irreconcilable. These discrepancies are found
in the genealogical tables, and in various numerical, historical, doc¬
trinal, ethical, and prophetical statements. It is the province of
the interpreter of Scripture to examine these with great patience
and care; he must not ignore any difficulty, but should be able to
explain the apparent inconsistencies, not by dogmatic assertions or
denials, but by rational methods of procedure. If he find a dis¬
crepancy or a contradiction which he is unable to explain he should
not hesitate to acknowledge it. It does not follow that because he
is not able to solve the problem it is therefore insoluble. The lack
of sufficient data has often effectually baffled the efforts of the most
able and accomplished exegetes.
A large proportion of the discrepancies of the Bible are traceable
causes of the to one or more of the following causes: The errors of
discrepancies, copyists in the manuscripts; the variety of names ap¬
plied to the same person or place; different methods of reckoning
times and seasons; different local and historical standpoints; and
the special scope and plan of each particular book. Variations are
not contradictions, and many essential variations arise from differ¬
ent methods of arranging a series of particular facts. The peculi¬
arities of oriental thought and speech often involve seeming extrav¬
agance of statement and verbal inaccuracies, which are of a nature
to provoke the criticism of the less impassioned writers of the West.
And it is but just to add that not a few of the alleged contradic¬
tions of Scripture exist only in the imagination of sceptical writers,
and are to be attributed to the perverse misunderstanding of cap¬
tious critics.
It is easy to perceive how, in the course of ages, numerous
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
515
little errors and discrepancies would be likely to find their way into
the text by reason of the oversight or carelessness of Discrepancies
transcribers. To this cause we attribute many of the arisin^ from
variations m orthography and in numerical statements, ists.
The habit of expressing numbers by letters, several of which closely
resemble each other, was liable to occasion many discrepancies.
Sometimes the omission of a letter or a word occasions a difficulty
which cannot now be removed. Thus the only proper rendering of
the present Hebrew text of 1 Sam. xiii, 1, is, aSaul was a year old
(Hebrew, son of a year) when he began to reign, and two years he
reigned over Israel.” The writer is here evidently following the
custom exhibited in 2 Sam. ii, 10; v, 4; 1 Kings xiv, 21; xxii, 42;
2 Kings viii, 26, of opening his account of a king’s reign with a for¬
mal statement of his age when he became king, and of the number
of years that he reigned. But the numbers have been lost from
the text, and the omission is older than the Septuagint version
which follows our present corrupt Hebrew text. The following
form may best present the passage with its omissions: “Saul was
- - years old when he began to reign, and he reigned - and
two years over Israel.” These omissions can now be supplied only
by conjecture. It is evident that Saul was more than a year old
when he began to reign, and that he reigned more than two years.
According to Acts xiii, 21, and Josephus (Ant., vi, 14, 9) he reigned
forty years, but this may include the seven years and a half as¬
sumed to have passed between the death of Saul and that of Ish-
bosheth (2 Sam. ii, 11). Ishbosheth, however, is said to have reigned
but twTo years (2 Sam. ii, 10). The language of Paul and Josephus
more likely expresses a current Jewish tradition which was not exact.
A comparison of genealogical tables often exhibits discrepancies
in names and numbers. But the transcription and repe- Discrepancieg
tition of such records through a long period of time, in genealogy
and by many different scribes, would naturally expose caItaules*
them to numerous variations. A comparison of the family record
of Jacob and his sons, the seventy souls that came into Egypt
(Gen. xlvi), wTith that of the census of these families in the time of
Moses (Num. xxvi) will serve to illustrate the peculiarities of He¬
brew genealogies. We give these lists, on the adjoining page, in
parallel columns, and also select from the lists in 1 Chron. ii— viii
the corresponding names, so far as they appear there, that the
reader may see at a glance the variations in orthography. For
convenience of reference we place the corresponding names oppo¬
site each other; but the student should note the variations in the
order of names as they appear in these different lists. The list
516
PRINCIPLES OF
in Genesis is arranged according to the wives and concubines of
Jacob’s family Jacob. The first thirty-three include Jacob and the
record. sc??is and daughter of Leah; the next sixteen are the
sons of Zilpah; the next fourteen are the sons of Rachel; and the
remaining seven are the sons of Bilhah. It is a manifest purpose
to make the list number “ seventy souls.” In Num. xxvi the order
of names follows no apparent plan.1
G-en. xlvi.
Num. xxvi.
1 Chrcra. ii-viii.
1.
JACOB.
2.
Reuben .
. Reuben .
. Reuben.
3.
Hanoch .
. Hanoch.
4.
Phallua .
. Phallua .
. Phallua.
(Descendants.)
5
TTprzrrm
^ Hezron .
6.
Carmi .
. Carmi .
. Carmi.
f
7.
Simeon .
. Simeon. . . .
. Simeon.
8.
Jemuel .
. . . . * Nemuel .
. . . . * Nemuel.
?
9.
Jamin .
. Jamin.
10.
Oh ad
11.
Jacliin .
12.
Zohar .
. . . . * Zerah .
13.
Shaul .
. Shaul.
CO
14.
Leyi .
. Levi.
CO
1
15.
Gershon .
e 0
(Descendants.)
Fr\
©
(Z3
16.
Kohath .
0Q
17.
Merari .
PJ
(Descendants.)
<
18.
Judah . ; .
. Judah .
bA
19.
Er. Hezron . . . .
20.
Onan. Hamul . . .
21.
Shelali .
22.
Pherez .
23.
Zerah . . .
24.
ISSACHAR .
. Issachar .
. Issachar.
25.
Tola .
. Tola .
. Tola.
26.
Phuvah . . . ; .
27.
Job . .
28. Shimron .
29. Zebulun .
. Zebulun.
30. Sered _ v .
. 1
31. Elon .
. !
I cz
1 S 8
32. Jahleel . . .
33. Dinah .
. j
r 2
3 bOTS
I 1*1 O a>
t . J
1 The names of the tribes, or tribe-fathers, are frequently written, but in no two
places do they stand in the same orcter. Comp. Gen. xxix, 32-xxx, 24; xlix; Exod.
i, 1-5; Num. i, 5-15 and 20-47; xiii, 1-16; xxxiv, 17-28; Deut. xxxiii.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
517
CO
O
CO
w
H
n
K
fc
C
CO
CG
W
IS
u
P5
*>
CO
O
CO
CO
w
IS
d
CQ
'34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
‘ 42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
„ 49.
'50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
‘ 56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
f 64.
| 65.
| 66.
- 67.
68.
69.
. 70.
Gen. xlvi.
Gad .
Ziphion . .
Haggi . . . .
Shuni
Ezbon
Eri .
Arodi
Areli .
Asher
Jimnah . . .
Jishvali . .
Jishvi
Beriali . . . ,
Serali .
Heber
Malchiel .
Joseph . .
Manasseli
Ephraim .
Benjamin
Bela . .
Beciier . .
Aslibel . . .
Gera _
Naaman .
Ehi .
Rosh
Muppiin .
Huppim .
Aid .
Dan .
Hushim .
Naphtali
Jahzeel . .
Guni ....
Jezer
Shillem...
Num. xx vi.
. .Gad _
* Zephon .
..Haggi ..
. . Shuni. . .
* Ozui. . . .
. Eri .
* Arod . . .
..Areli ...
1 Chron. ii-viii.
. .Gad.
B >
©
si
5 §
CS S-4
© J3
G O .
o & JL
H, © "
CO i— t
. .Asher .
. .Jimnah .
Jishvah
. .Jishvi .
. .Beriah .
. . Serah . .
. . Heber .
. . Malchiel .
. .Joseph .
(Descendants.)
. .Ephraim .
(Descendants.)
. . Benjamin .
..Bela .
. . - . . (Comp. Heb. text of 1 Chron. viii,
. .Aslibel .
. Aslibel.
. .Naaman .
* Ahiram .
)
Slieshupham . Shephuphan.
* Hupham ........
. .Ard .
. . Dan .
* Shuham .
. . Naphtali .
. Naphtali.
. * Jahzieel.
. .Guni .
. Guni.
T .Tprpr .
. .Shillem .
. * SI mil urn.
* The asterisk is designed to call attention to several variations in orthography; the small
capitals designate the tribe-fathers; names in black letter are supposed levirate substitutions of
grandchildren; and the word (descendants) stands in place of names given in the Scripture
record, but for want of room not printed above.
In studying these lists of names, it is important to attend to the
historical position and purpose of each writer. The Historical
list of Gen. xlvi was probably prepared in Egypt, some standpoint,
time after the migration of Jacob and his family thither. It was
518
PRINCIPLES OF
probably prepared, in the form in which it there stands, by the
sanction of Jacob himself.1 The aged and chastened patriarch
went down into Egypt with the divine assurance that God would
make him a great nation, and bring him up again (Gen. xlvi, 3, 4).
Great interest therefore would attach to his family register, as it
was made out under his own direction. But at the time of the
census of Mum. xxvi, whilst the names of the heads of families are
all carefully preserved, they have become differently arranged, and
other names have become prominent. Numerous later descendants
have become historically conspicuous, and are accordingly added
under the proper family heads. The tables given in I Chron. i-ix
show much more extensive additions and changes. The peculiar
differences between the lists show that one has not been copied
from the other ; nor were both taken from a common source. They
were evidently prepared independently, each from a different stand¬
point, and for a definite purpose.
VVe should notice also the peculiar Hebrew methods of thought
and expression as exhibited in the ancient list of Gen. xlvi. In
Hebrew style verses 8 and 15 Jacob is included among his own sons,
and usage. and the immortal thirty-three, which includes the father
and one daughter, and two great-grandsons (Hezron and PTamul)
probably not yet born when Jacob moved into Egypt, are desig-
1 The following suggestive observations of Dr. Mahan, in his little work entitled
“The Spiritual Point of View; An Answer to Bishop Colenso” (New York, 18G3,
pp. 57, 58), illustrate how many considerations and circumstances may have naturally
influenced in the preparation of this genealogy. “Jacob’s family list, whether written
in any way or merely committed to memory, contained before he went into Egypt pre¬
cisely seventy souls ; though four of these, namely, his two wives and two of the sons
of Judah, were souls of the departed. Thus, arithmetically, and in a matter-of-fact
way, Jacob had sixty-six in his company when he first settled in Egypt ; but religious¬
ly, or, as some might say, poetically — in the spirit of the little maid of Wordsworth’s
ballad, who insisted so strenuously ‘we are seven’ — he might still count them seventy.
To this fact may be added the following probabilities : When Jacob arrived in Egypt
he probably gave to his list the title or heading which it still bears, namely, The
names of the children of Israel which came with him into Egypt. And it is likely
enough that he did this without troubling himself to erase, either from the tablets or
his memory, the names of the dear departed souls whom the kind-hearted and faithful
patriarch still regarded as ‘ of his company.’ At a later date, however, he may have
revised his list. Affectionate heads of families are apt to do such things. Their
family list is the solace of their old age ; and they turn it over and over as fondly as
a miser counts over his hoarded money. The patriarch, then, turning his list over in
this way, and counting his seventy souls which the Lord had given him, and reluctant
to erase his four departed souls, availed himself of the first opportunity to substitute
for them four new souls — among his great-grandchildren — whom the Lord had granted
him in their place. Thus the names of the grandchildren of Judah and Asher may
easily have come in. No other names were added, because no others were needed.”
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
519
nated as “ all the souls of his sons and his daughters.” Similar
usage appears in Exod. i, 5, where it is said that “all the souls that
came out of the loins of J acob were seventy souls.” 1 The writer has
in mind the memorable “seventy” that came into Egypt (comp.
Deut. x, 22). In Gen. xlvi, 27, the two sons of Joseph, who are
expressly said to have been “born to him in Egypt,” are reckoned
among the seventy who “came into Egypt.” It is a carping and
captious criticism which fastens upon peculiarities of Hebrew itsus
loquendi like these, and pronounces them “remarkable contradic¬
tions, involving such plain impossibilities that they cannot be re¬
garded as true narratives of actual historical matters of fact.”2
The probable reason for reckoning Hezron and Hamul (verse 12)
among the seventy was that they were adopted by Judah in the
places of the deceased Er and Onan, who died in the land of Canaan.
This appears from the fact that in the later registers of Num. xxvi
and 1 Chron. ii they appear as permanent heads of families in Judah.
Heber and Malchiel, grandsons of Asher (ver. 17), are also reckoned
among the seventy, and probably for the reason that they were
born before the migration into Egypt. They also appear in the
later lists as heads of families in Israel.
In the list of Gen. xlvi, 21, the names of Naaman and Ard appear
among the sons of Benjamin, but in Num. xxvi, 40, they substitution of
appear as sons of Bela. The most probable explanation names-
of this discrepancy is that the Naaman and Ard, mentioned in Gen.
xlvi, 21, died in Egypt without issue, and two of their brother
Bela’s sons were named after them, and substituted in their place
to perpetuate intact the families of Benjamin. In 1 Chron. viii
many other names appear among the sons of Benjamin and Bela,
but whether Nohah and Rapha were substituted for families that
had become extinct, or are other names for some of the same
persons who appear in the list of Gen. xlvi, it is now impossible to
1 In the mention of seventy-jive souls, Acts vii, 14, Stephen simply follows the read¬
ing of the Septuagint.
2 Bishop Colenso on the Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua (New York, 1863),
p. 60. This remarkable critic quotes Gen. xlvi, 12, and then observes: “It appears
to me to be certain that the writer here means to say that Hezron and Ilamul were born
in the land of Canaan .” But it is absolutely certain that that is one particular thing
which the writer does not say. Again, after quoting Exod. i, 1, 6, and Deut. x, 22,
he observes: “I assume that it is absolutely undeniable that the narrative of the
Exodus distinctly involves the statement, that the sixty-six persons ‘ out of the loins
of Jacob,’ mentioned in Gen. xlvi. and no others (!), went down with him into Egypt.”
Mark the words “ and no others, ” although Jacob’s sons’ wives are expressly men¬
tioned in Gen. xlvi, 26. Such a critic would appear to be utterly incapable of grasp*
mg the spirit and style of the Hebrew writers.
520
PRINCIPLES OF
determine. Ashbel is mentioned as second in Chronicles, but in
Gen. xlvi he stands third.1 Gera, the fourth name in the list in
Genesis, appears twice in 1 Chron. viii, 3, 5, among the sons of Bela.
Such variations evince the independence of the different lists, and
yet they are of a nature to confirm rather than discredit the genu¬
ineness of the several genealogies. Each list had its own distinct
history and purpose.
It was in accordance with the Hebrew spirit and custom to frame
a register of honoured names so as to have them produce a definite
and suggestive number. So Matthew’s genealogy of our Lord is
arranged into three groups of fourteen names each (Matt, i, 17),
and yet this could be done only by the omission of several import¬
ant names.2 While the compiler might, by another process equally
correct, have made the list of Gen. xlvi number sixty-nine by omit¬
ting Jacob, or have made it exceed seventy by adding the names
of the wives of Jacob’s sons, he doubtless purposely arranged it so
as to make it number seventy souls. The number of the descend¬
ants of Noah, as given in the genealogical table of Gen. x, amounts
to seventy. This habit of using fixed numbers, being a help to
memory, may have originated in the necessities of oral tradition.
The seventy elders of Israel were probably chosen with some ref¬
erence to the families that sprung from these seventy souls of
Jacob’s household, and Jesus’ sending out of seventy disciples
(Luke x, 1) is evidence that his mind was influenced by the mystic
significance of the number seventy.
It is well known that intermarriages between the tribes, and
Legal and lin- fluesti(>ris of legal right to an inheritance, affected a
eai genealogies person’s genealogical status. Thus, in Num. xxxii, 40,
often differ. 4^ R js that Moses gave the land of Gilead to
Machir, the son of Manasseh, “and Jair, the son of Manasseh, went
and seized their hamlets, and called them Havoth-jair ” (comp.
1 Kings iv, 13). This inheritance, therefore, belonged to the tribe
of Manasseh; but a comparison of 1 Chron. ii, 21, 22, shows that by
lineal descent Jair belonged to the tribe of Judah, and is so reck¬
oned by the chronicler, who also gives the facts which explain the
whole case. He informs us that Hezron, the son of Pharez, the son
of J udah, married the daughter of Machir, the son of Manasseh,
1 Perhaps for "1331, and Becker , in Gen. xlvi, 21, we should read 1133, his firstborn.
2 “According to the evangelist,” says Upham, “the time-cycles of the Hebrews
(and if so, the time-cycles of the world) had relations to the coming of the Lord. He
points out that the life of the Hebrews unrolled in three time-harmonies, one ending
in triumph, one in mourning ; and thus may intimate that in the end of the third the
notes of the two former blend.” — Thoughts on the Holy Gospels, p. 199.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
521
and by her became the father of Segub, who was the father of Jair.
If now Jair would make out his legal claim to the inheritance in
Gilead he would show how he was a descendant of Machir, the son
of Manasseh; but if his paternal lineage were inquired after, it
would be as easily traceable to Hezron, the son of Judah.
Considerations of this kind will go far to solve the difficulties
which have so greatly perplexed critics in the two di-
verse genealogies of Jesus, as given in Matt, i, 1-17, genealogies of
and Luke iii, 23-38. At this late day the particular Jesus>
facts are wanting which would put in clear light the discrepancies
of these lists of our Lord’s ancestry, and can only be supplied by
such reasons and probable suppositions as are warranted by a care¬
ful collation of genealogies, and well-known facts of Jewish custom
in reckoning legal succession and lineal descent. The hypothesis,
quite prevalent and popular since the time of the Reformation, that
Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph, and Luke that of Mary, is
justly set aside by a majority of the best critics as incompatible
with the words of both evangelists, who alike claim to give the
genealogy of Joseph.1 The right to “the throne of David his fa¬
ther” (Luke i, 32) must, according to all Jewish precedent, ideas,
and usage, be based upon a legal ground of succession, as of an in¬
heritance; and therefore his genealogy must be traced backward
from Joseph the legal husband of Mary. And it is clear, outside
of these genealogies, that Joseph was of the royal house of David.
Thus, the angel addressed him: “Joseph, son of David, do not fear
to take Mary thy wife ” (Matt, i, 20). He went to Bethlehem, the
city of David, to enroll himself with Mary, “ because he was of the
house and family of David ” (Luke ii, 45). It is, however, not at
all improbable that Mary also was of the house and family of Da¬
vid,2 a near relative — cousin perhaps — of Joseph, and thus the
natural succession of Jesus to the throne of David would, according
1 Many critics read Luke iii, 23, as if it implied that Mary’s rather than Joseph’s
genealogy is given. Thus: uv vide, wf evo/ui&To, tov ‘H hei: “Being the son,
as was supposed, of Joseph (but in fact of Mary), of Eli,” etc. This, however, is man¬
ifestly interpolating a most important statement into the words of the evangelist, a
statement too important for him to have omitted had he intended such a thought.
See Meyer, in loco.
2 Fairbairn observes that the marriage of cousins “ perfectly accords with Jewish
practice. ... It was the constant aim of the Jews to make inheritance and blood-
relationship, as far as possible, go together.” — Hermeneutical Manual, p. 222. Upham
similarly remarks: “Royal blood intermarries with royal blood. When Victoria was
betrothed to Albert every one knew that Albert was a prince, and every one would
know that the betrothed of a Czarowitz, or of a Prince of Wales, was a princess.
The family of King David, obscure people for centuries, must have married below
their rank, or have intermarried among themselves. That they did the latter is so
522
PRINCIPLES OF
to Jewish ideas, be most remarkably complete. Certain it is that
our Lord’s descent from David was never questioned in the earliest
times. He allowed himself to be called the Son of David (Matt, ix,
27; xv, 22), and no one of his adversaries denied this important
claim. He was “ of the seed of David,” according to Paul’s Gospel
(2 Tim. ii, 8; comp. Rom. i, 3; Acts xiii, 22, 23), and the Epistle to
the Hebrews says: “It is evident {npod?]Xov, conspicuously manifest)
that our Lord has sprung from Judah” (Ileb. vii, 14).
The Emperor Julian attacked these genealogies on the ground
Jerome and of their discrepancies, and Jerome, in replying to him,
tlfe Lord’s gen- °^)serves that if Julian had been more familiar with
eaiogy. Jewish modes of speech he might have seen that one
evangelist gives the natural and the other the legal pedigree of
Joseph.1 Essentially the same method of reconciling these dis¬
crepancies was advanced long previously by Africanus, who writes
as follows: “It was customary in Israel to calculate the names of
the generations either according to nature or according to the law;
according to nature by the succession of legitimate offspring; ac¬
cording to law when another raised children to the name of a
brother who had died childless. For as the hope of a resurrection
was not yet clearly given, they imitated the promise which was to
take place by a kind of mortal resurrection, with a view to perpet¬
uate the name of the person who had died. Since then there are
some of those who are inserted in this genealogical table that suc¬
ceed each other in the natural order of fa her and son, some again
that were born of others and were ascribed to others by name, both
the real and reputed fathers have been recorded. Thus neither of
the Gospels has made a false statement, whether calculating in the
order of nature or according to law. For the families descended
from Solomon, and those from Nathan, were so intermingled by
substitutions in the place of those who had died childless, by second
marriages, and the raising up of seed, that the same persons are
justly considered as in one respect belonging to one of these, and in
another respect belonging to others. Hence it is that, both of these
accounts being true, they come down to Joseph, with considerable
intricacy, it is true, but with great accuracy.” 2
probable, from tlie tendency of Jewish families to keep together, and from the usage
of royal families, that it may be held for certain that when St. Matthew stated that
Joseph, a prince of the house of David, married Mary, he plainly told his countrymen
(and, if he thought of others, he thought that through them all would know) that the
betrothed of this prince was a princess of the house of David.” — Thoughts on the
Holy Gospels, p. 204.
1 Jerome on Matt. i.
2 Quoted by Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. (Bohn’s ed.), book i, chap. vii.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
523
These general considerations furnish the basis on which several
different methods of harmonizing the genealogies are no hypothesis
possible. In the absence of certain information no hy- absolute Ccer-
pothesis can well claim absolute certainty. The theory tainty.
of Africanus is that Jacob and Heli were brothers by the same
mother. Heli died childless, and Jacob married his widow, and by
her begat Joseph, the husband of Mary (Matt, i, 16), and yet, accord¬
ing to levirate law, Joseph was also of Heli (Luke iii, 23).1 Ac¬
cording to this theory Matthew records the natural, and Luke the
legal, line of descent. Grotius, on the other hand, maintains that
Matthew’s table gives the legal succession, inasmuch as he recounts
those who obtained the kingdom (which was the right of the first¬
born) without the admixture of a private name.2 He observes
further that, according to Matt, i, 12, Jechonias begat Salathiel, but
according to Luke iii, 27, Salathiel was the son of Neri. Now, ac¬
cording to Jer. xxii, 30 (comp, xxxvi, 30), Jechonias was sentenced
to become childless. In that case the right to the throne of David
would devolve upon the next nearest heir, which was probably
Salathiel, the son of Neri, whose direct lineage Luke traces up to
Nathan, another son of David (Luke iii, 27-31). This theory is
most fully developed by Hervey, who maintains “that Salathiel, of
the house of Nathan, became heir to David’s throne on the failure
of Solomon’s line in Jechonias, and that as such he and his descend¬
ants were transferred as ‘sons of Jeconiah’ to the royal genealog¬
ical table, according to the principle of the Jewish law laid down
in Num. xxvii, 8-11. The two genealogies then coincide for two,
or rather four, generations [Salathiel, Zorobabel (= Rhesa), Joana
(= Hananiah, 1 Chron. iii, 19), Juda (= Abiud of Matt, i, 13, and
Hodaiah of 1 Chron. iii, 24)]. There then occur six names in Mat¬
thew which are not found in Luke; and then once more the two
genealogies coincide in the name of Matthan, or Matthat (Matt,
i, 15; Luke iii, 24), to whom two different sons, Jacob and Heli,
are assigned, but one and the same grandson and heir, Joseph, the
husband of Mary. The simple and obvious explanation of this is,
on the same principle as before, that Joseph was descended from
Joseph, a younger son of Abiud (the Juda of Luke iii, 26), but
that on the failure of the line of Abiud’s eldest son in Eleazar
(Matt, i, 15), Joseph’s grandfather, Matthan, became the heir; that
Matthan had two sons, Jacob and Heli; that Jacob had no son, and
consequently that Joseph, the son of his younger brother Heli, be¬
came heir to his uncle, and to the throne of David. . . . Mary, the
1 Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., book i, chap. vii.
2 See his Annotations on Matt, i, 16, and Poole, Synopsis Critieorum, in loco.
524
PRINCIPLES OF
mother of Jesus, was, in all probability, the daughter of Jacob,
and first cousin to Joseph, her husband. So that in point of fact ,
though not of form , both the genealogies are as much hers as her
husband’s.”1
The biblical genealogies may appear to the modern reader like
Genealogies not a useless part of Scripture, and lists of places, many
useless. Qf them now utterly unknown, like that of Israel’s
places of encampment (Num. xxxiii), and the cities allotted to the
different tribes (e. g., Josh, xv, 20-62), have been pronounced by
sceptics as incompatible with lofty ideas of a written revelation of
God. But such notions spring from a stilted and mechanical con¬
ception of what the revelation ought to be. These apparently dry
and tiresome lists of names are among the most irrefragable evi¬
dences of the historical verity of the Scripture records. If to our
modern thought they seem of no practical worth, we should not
forget that to the ancient Hebrew they were of the first importance
as documents of ancestral history and legal rights. The most un¬
critical and absurd of all sceptical fancies would be the notion that
these lists have been fabricated for a purpose. One might as well
maintain that the fossil remains of extinct animals have been set in
the rocks for the purpose of deception. The superficial utilitarian
may indeed pronounce both the fossils and the genealogies alike
worthless; but the profounder student of the earth and of man will
recognise in them invaluable indexes of history. These genealogies
are like the rough stones in the lower foundation of a building.
Some of the stones are out of sight in the subsoil; others have be¬
come nicked and bruised, and some displaced and lost in the lapse
of centuries, but they were all in some way essential to the origin,
rise, stability, and usefulness of the noble superstructure.
1 A. C. Hervey, article on Genealogy of Jesus Christ in Smith’s Bible Dictionary.
For fuller details and discussion of the same theory see the same author’s volume en¬
titled Genealogies of our Lord (Cambridge, 1853). Dr. Holmes attempts (article Gen.
of Jesus Christ in Kitto’s New Cyclopcedia of Biblical Literature) to controvert
Ilervey’s positions and arguments, but we think entirely without success. The same
may be said of Meyer’s note at the end of Luke iii. The fact is that while no one
should affirm that Hervey ’s hypothesis is perfectly certain (for in the absence of suffi¬
cient data no theory is entitled to such a claim) no one can prove that it is not cor¬
rect. All that can well be asked for in the case is a hypothesis which will exhibit
how both genealogies may be true, and that which holds Matthew’s to be the legal
(royal) line and Luke’s the natural seems on the whole to be most entitled to credit.
On the minor discrepancies and difficulties of these genealogies see .the works named
above, the several Bible dictionaries and commentaries, and W. H. Mill’s discussion of
the genealogies in his Observations on the attempted A pplication of Pantheistic Prin¬
ciples to the Theory and Historical Criticism of the Gospel. Cambridge, 2d edition,
18oo.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
525
The greater number of the numerical discrepancies of the Bible
are probably due to the mistakes of copyists. The an- Numericai dis-
cient custom of using letters for numbers, and the great crePaneies.
similarity of some of the letters, will account for such differences
as that of 2 Sam. viii, 4, compared with 1 Chron. xviii, 4, where
final Nun (|), which stands for 700, might easily be confounded with
Zayin with two dots over it (f) which was used to denote 7000.
According to 1 Kings vii, 15, the two brazen pillars were each
eighteen cubits high; in 2 Chron. iii, 15, it is written: “He made
before the house two pillar^ thirty and five cubits long.” Some
have thought that, as in Kings, the height (rop) of each pillar is
given, and in Chronicles the length (TjiK) of the two pillars, we should
understand the latter passage as giving the length of the two pillars
together. They may have been cast in one piece, and afterward
cut into two pillars, each being, in round numbers, eighteen cubits.
The more probable supposition, however, is that the discrepancy
arose by confounding IT = 18, with rA = 35.
The two lists of exiles who returned with Zerubbabel (Ezra ii,
1-70, and Nell, vii, 6-73) exhibit numerous discrepan- Lists of retum-
cies as well as many coincidences, and it is remarkable Ezra andNehe-
that the numbers in Ezra’s list amount to 29,818, and Uriah,
in Nehemiah’s to 31,089, and yet, according to both lists, the entire
congregation numbered 42,360 (Ezra ii, 64; Neh. vii, 66). The
probability is that neither list is intended as a perfect enumeration
of all the families that returned from exile, but only of such fami¬
lies of Judah and Benjamin as could show an authentic genealogy
of their father’s house, while the 42,360 includes many persons and
families belonging to other tribes who in their exile had lost all
certain record of their genealogy, but were nevertheless true de¬
scendants of some of the ancient tribes. It is also noticeable that
Ezra’s list mentions 494 persons not recognised in Nehemiah’s list,
and Nehemiah’s list mentions 1,765 not recognised in Ezra’s; but if
we add the surplus of Ezra to the sum of Nehemiah (494 + 31,089
= 31,583) we have the same result as by adding Nehemiah’s sur¬
plus to the sum of Ezra’s numbers (1,765 + 29,818 = 31,583).
Hence it may be reasonably believed that 31,583 was the sum of all
that could show their father’s house; that the two lists were drawn
up independently of each other; and that both are defective, though
one supplies the defects of the other.
As an instance of doctrinal and ethical inconsistency Doctrinal and
between the Old and New Testaments we may cite the andS!^0^”
Hebrew law of retaliation as treated by our Lord. In
Exod. xxi, 23-25, it is commanded that in cases of assault and
526
PRINCIPLES OF
strife resulting in the injury of persons, “thou shalt give life for
life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn¬
ing for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe ” (comp. Lev.
xxiv, 20; Deut. xix, 21). But Jesus says: “Do not resist the evil
man; but whosoever smites thee upon thy right cheek turn to him
the other also” (Matt, v, 39). A proper explanation of these con¬
tradictory Scriptures will also answer for many other passages of
like spirit and import. The true explanation is to be had by a
careful consideration of the historical standpoint of each speaker,
and the particular end or purpose which each had in view. We
are- not to assume that the Mosaic legislation was without divine
sanction, and that by the words “ it was said to the ancients ”
(Matt, v, 21) Jesus meant to cast a reflection on the source or au¬
thority of the old law, as if to set himself against Moses. What
was said to them of old was well said, but it needed modifying at
a later age and under a new dispensation. Moreover, Moses was
legislating for a peculiar nation at a distinctive crisis, and enunciat¬
ing the rights and methods of a civil jurisprudence. The old law
of retaliation was grounded essentially in truth and justice. In the
maintenance of law and order in any body politic personal assault
and wilful wrong demand penal satisfaction, and this self-evident
Supposed con- truth the Gospel does not ignore or set aside. It recog-
mct between njses the civil magistrate as a minister of God ordained
the Gospel. to punish the evildoer (Rom. xiii, 1-5; 1 Peter ii, 14).
But in the sermon on the mount Jesus is urging the principle of
Christian tenderness and love as it should prevail in the personal
intercourse of men as individuals. The great principle of Christian
action should be: Let not bitterness and hatred toward any man
possess your soul. The spirit of law, national honour, and right
logically led to the general motto, “ Thou shalt love thy neighbour
and hate thy enemy” (Matt, v, 43). Jesus would bring about a
better age, a kindlier feeling among men, a higher and nobler civil¬
ization. To effect this he issues a new commandment designed, first
of all, to operate in a man’s private relations with his fellow man :
“Love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you” (Matt,
v, 44). Here our Lord is evidently not putting forth a maxim or
method of civil jurisprudence, but a principle of individual con¬
duct. He shows us, as Alford observes, “the condition to which a
Christian community should tend, and to further which every pri¬
vate Christian’s own endeavours should be directed. It is quite
beside the purpose for the world to say that these precepts of our
Lord are too highly pitched for humanity, and so to find an excuse
for violating them. If we were disciples of his in the true sense,
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
527
these precepts would, in their spirit, as indicative of frames of
mind, be strictly observed; and, as far as we are disciples, we shall
attain to such observance.” 1
That Jesus, by these precepts of personal conduct in the ordinary
affairs of life, did not intend to forbid the censure and ^
. . Civil rights
pumsiiifient or evildoers, is evident from his own con- maintained by
duct. When struck by one of the officers in the pres- JesusandPauL
ence of the high priest, our Lord remonstrated against the flagrant
abuse (John xviii, 22, 23). When Paul was similarly smitten by
command of the high priest (Acts xxiii, 3), the apostle indignantly
cried out: “ God will smite thee, thou whited wall!” The same
apostle sets forth the true Christian doctrine on all these points in
Rom. xii, 18-xiii, 6: “If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, be
at peace with all men.” Here he more than intimates the improba¬
bility of being at peace with all, and then, assuming that one suffers
personal assault and injury, he adds: “Avenge not yourselves, be¬
loved, but give place to the wrath ” (of God). That is, let the
divine wrath take its own course, and do not attempt to anticipate
it, or stand in its way by retaliation and personal revenge. And
then he quotes from the old law (Deut. xxxii, 35) where “ it is
written, To me belongeth vengeance; I will recompense, saith the
Lord.” God will bring his wrath (opy^) to bear upon the offender
in due time, and will requite the wrong. And then follows another
quotation from the Old Testament (Prov. xxv, 21, 22): “If thine
enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink; for by doing
this thou wilt heap coals of fire'upon his head.” Thereupon he sums
up the whole thought by saying: “ Be not overcome by the evil
(which has been committed against thee), but overcome the evil in
the good ” (in the element and life of that all-conquering goodness
which will be exhibited by this course of conduct). But so far is
the apostle from teaching that crimes and offences are never to be
avenged that he proceeds immediately to show that God has or¬
dained the civil power as an agency and instrument for this very
end. Is it asked what course the wrath of God takes when he
recompenses vengeance upon evildoers? Doubtless his methods
of judgment are manifold, but the apostle shows us, in the imme¬
diate context, one of the established methods by which God has
arranged to punish the impious offender, namely, through “the
higher powers” (Rom. xiii, 1). Rulers are designed to be a terror
to evildoers. The civil magistrate “ does not vainly bear the
sword; for he is God’s minister, an avenger for wrath (eicducog elg
oQyijv, a divinely ordained avenging agent for the purpose of
1 Greek Testament on Matt, v, 38.
528
PRINCIPLES OF
executing the wrath, f) opy//, mentioned above in xii, 19) to him that
doeth the evil ” (Rom. xiii, 4). Let no man, therefore, presume to
say that the spirit and precepts of the New Testament are at war
with those of the Old. In both Testaments the principles of broth¬
erly love and of doing good for evil are inculcated, as well as the
duty of maintaining human rights and civil order.
Some persons have strangely assumed that the prohibition of
The avenging murder (Exod. xx, 13) in the Decalogue is inconsistent
of blood. with the taking of human life in any form. This fallacy
arises from a failure to distinguish between individual relations and
the demands of public and administrative justice. The right and
justice of capital punishment are affirmed in the most ancient legis¬
lation (Gen. ix, 6). The law of Moses, which makes so prominent
the prohibition of murder, forbids the taking of any satisfaction for
the life of a murderer. He that wickedly takes the life of a man
must pay the penalty with his own life, or the very land will be
defiled (Num. xxxv, 31-34). Ancient law and custom, recognized in
the books of Moses, gave the nearest kinsman of the murdered man
the right of avenging this crime. The practice, however, was liable
to grave abuses, and Moses took measures to restrict them by pro¬
viding cities of refuge. But the necessity of punishing the guilty
criminal is everywhere recognised, and the Gospel of Jesus nowhere
assumes to set it aside. The methods of penalty may change in the
course of ages, and sins which called for capital punishment ampng
the ancient Hebrews may demand no such severity of treatment
under the Gospel dispensation. But it may be gravely doubted
whether the “ higher powers ” can bear the sword to any excellent
purpose if they be denied the right to recompense the crime of
murder with capital punishment.1
A prominent example of supposed inconsistency of doctrine in
Difference be- the New Testament is found in the different methods of
jlSonJusS presenting the subject of justification in the epistles of
flcation. Paul and of James. Paul’s teaching is thus expressed
in Gal. ii, 15, 16: “We Jews by nature, and not sinners from the
1 Meyer observes that Rom. xiii, 4, compared with Acts xxv, 11, “proves that the
abolition of the right of capital punishment deprives the magistracy of a power which
is not merely given to it in the Old Testament, but is also decisively confirmed in the
New Testament, and which it (herein lies the sacred limitation and responsibilit}r of
this power) possesses as God’s minister ; on which account its application is to be up¬
held as a principle with reference to those cases in law, where the actual satisfaction
of the divine Nemesis absolutely demands it, while, at the same time, the right of
pardon is still to be kept open for all concrete cases. The character of being un¬
christian, of barbarism, etc., does not adhere to the right itself \ but to its abuse in
legislation and practice.” — Critical Commentary on Rom. xiii, 4.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICSo
529
Gentiles, but knowing that a man is not justified by the works of
the law (e£ epyov vogov, from works of law, i. e., as a source of
merit, ground of procedure in the given case, and so the reason and
cause of the justification) save through faith of Jesus Christ, even
we believed in (elg, into, in allusion to the definite fact of entering
into vital union with Christ at conversion) Christ Jesus, that we
might be justified by faith of Christ, and not by works of law; be¬
cause by works of law shall no flesh be justified.” Substantially
the same statement is made in Rom. iii, 20, 28, and in Rom. iv the
doctrine is illustrated by the case of Abraham, who “ believed God
and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness” (ver. 3). On the
other hand James insists on being “doers of the word” (Jas. i,
22-25). He extols practical godliness, the fulfilling of “the royal
law according to the Scripture ” (ii, 8), and declares that “ faith, if
it have not works, is dead by itself” (ii, 17). He also illustrates by
the case of Abraham “when he offered Isaac his son upon the
altar,” and argues “ that the faith wrought with his works, and by
the works the' faith was perfected, and the Scripture was fulfilled
which says : Abraham believed God and it was reckoned unto him
for righteousness, and he was called God’s Friend. Ye see,” he
concludes, “that by works (e£ epyuv) a man is justified, and not by
faith only” (ii, 21-24).
The solution of this apparent opposition is to be had by a study
of the personal religious experience of each writer, and Method of so-
their different modes of thought and fields of operation lution-
in the early Christian Church. We must also observe the peculiar
sense in which each one uses the terms faith, works, and justification,
for these words have each been used in all periods of the Church to
express a number of quite distinct though kindred ideas.
We should first remember that Paul was led to Christ by a sud¬
den and marvellous conversion. The conviction of sin, Different per-
the smitings of soul when he found that he had been 0fXpaui
persecuting the Lord Jesus, the falling of the scales and James,
from his eyes, and his consequent keen and vivid perception of the
free grace of the Gospel realized through failh in Christ Jesus— all
this would necessarily enter into his ideal of the justification of a
sinner. He sees that neither Jew nor Gentile can enter into saving
relations with Christ except through such a faith. Then his mis¬
sion and ministry led him pre-eminently to combat legal Judaism,
and he became “the apostle of the Gentiles.” James, on the other
hand, had been more gradually indoctrinated in Gospel life. His
conception of Christianity was that of the consummation and per¬
fection of the old covenant. His mission and ministry led him
34
530
PRINCIPLES OF
mainly, if not altogether, to labour among those of the circumcision
(Gal. ii, 9). He was wont to view all Christian doctrine in the light
of Old Testament Scripture, which thereby became to him “ the im¬
planted word” (i, 21), “a perfect law, the (law) of liberty” (ver. 25),
“a royal law” (ii, 8). And we must also bear in mind, as Neander
observes, “that James in his peculiar position had not, like Paul,
to vindicate an independent and unshackled ministration of the
Gospel among the Gentiles in opposition to the pretensions of
Jewish legal righteousness ; but that he felt himself compelled to
press the practical consequences and requirements of the Christian
faith on those in whom that faith had been blended with the. errors
of carnal Judaism, and to tear away the supports of their false
confidence.” 1
Such different experiences and fields of action would naturally
Different modes develop in these ministers of Jesus Christ correspond-
audPexpress!n? ingb7 different styles of thought itnd teaching. But
great truths. when, with these facts in view, we analyze their re¬
spective teachings, we find nothing that is really contradictory.
They simply set before us different aspects of the same great truths
of God. Paul’s teaching in the passages quoted above has refer¬
ence to faith in its first operation ; the confidence with which a
sinner, conscious of guilt and condemnation, throws himself upon
the free grace of God in Jesus Christ, and thus obtains pardon and
peace with God. James, on the other hand, treats of faith rather
as the abiding principle of a godly life, with works of piety flowing
from it as waters from a living spring. Paul cites the case of Abra¬
ham while he is yet in uncircumcision, and before he had received
that seal of the righteousness of faith (Pom. iv, 10, 11) ; but James
reverts to the later time when he offered up Isaac, and by that act
of fidelity to God’s word had his faith perfected (Jas. ii, 21). The
term works is also used with different shades of meaning. Paul has
in mind the works of the law with reference to the idea of a legal
righteousness; James evidently has in view works of practical
piety, like visiting the fatherless and widows in their nffliction
(i, 27), and ministering to the wants of the needy (ii, 15, 16). Justi¬
fication, accordingly, is viewed by Paul as a judicial act involving
the remission of sins, reconciliation with God, and restoration to the
divine favour; but with James it is rather the maintenance of such
a state of favour with God, a continued approval in the sight of
God and man. All this will appear the more clearly when we note
that James addresses his Jewish brethren of the dispersion, who
1 Planting and Training of the Christian Church. English Translation, by Ryland,
p. 499. New York, 1865.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
531
were exposed to divers temptations and trials (i, 1-4), and were in
danger of reposing in a dead antinomian Pharisaism; but Paul is
discussing, as a learned theologian, the doctrine of salvation, as it
originates in the counsels of God, and is developed in the history
of God’s dealings with the whole race of Adam.
Moreover, it should be observed that James does not deny the
necessity and efficacy of faith, nor does Paul ignore the
importance ot good works. What James opposes is the of Paul and
mischievous doctrine of faith apart from works. He James’
condemns the man who says he has faith, and yet exhibits a life
and conduct inconsistent with the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Such faith, he declares, is dead in itself (ii, 14-17), Justification is
by faith, but not by faith only (ver. 24). It evidences itself by
works of piety and love. Paul, on the other hand,* opposes the idea
of a legal righteousness. He condemns the vain conceit that a man
can merit God’s favour by a perfect keeping of law, and shows that
the law serves its highest purpose when it discloses to a man “the
knowledge of sin” (Rom. iii, 20) and makes sin itself appear “ex¬
ceedingly sinful” (vii, 7-13). But Paul is as far from denying the
necessity of good works as evidences of a believer’s faith in Christ,
as James is from denying the necessity of faith in Christ in order
to obtain the remission of sin. In Gal. v, 6, he speaks of “ faith
working through love,” and in 1 Cor. xiii, 2, he affirms that though
one have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, he
is nothing. Evidently both these apostles are in harmony with
Jesus, who comprehends the essential relations of faith and works
when he says: “Either make the tree good and its fruit good; or
make the tree corrupt and its fruit corrupt ; for the tree is known
by its fruit” (Matt, xii, 33).
These differences between Paul and James illustrate the Individ¬
ual freedom of the sacred writers in their enunciation
. _ _ • . , . . . . Individual free-
of divine truth. Each maintains his own peculiarities dom of different
of thought and style. Each receives and communi- 'vriters-
cates his word of revelation and knowledge of the mystery of
Christ according to the conditions of life, experience, and action
under which he has been trained. All these facts are to be taken
into consideration when we compare and contrast the teachings of
Scripture which are apparently diverse. It will be found that these
variations constitute one manifold and self-evidencing revelation of
the only true God.
The general principles of exegesis set forth above will suffice for
the explanation of all other doctrinal and ethical inconsistencies
which have been alleged as existing in the Bible. Strict regard to
532
PRINCIPLES OF
the standpoint of the speaker or writer, the occasion, scope, and
plan, together with a critical analysis of the details, will usually
show that there exists no real contradiction. But when men bring
forward hyperbolical expressions peculiar to oriental speech, or
instances of Hebraic anthropomorphism, and press them into an
assumed literal significance, they simply create the difficulties over
which they stumble. Doctrinal and ethical inconsistencies, devel¬
oped by such a process, are all dissipated by attention to the na¬
ture of the scriptural language and a rational interpretation of the
same.
Mr. Haley, in his* comprehensive and valuable work on the Dis-
„ , _ crepancies of the Bible,1 observes that these discrepan-
cai discrepan- cies are not without a value. 1 hey may well be believed
cles’ to contemplate the following ends: (1) They stimulate
intellectual effort, awaken curiosity and inquiry, and thus lead to a
closer and more extensive study of the sacred volume. (2) They
illustrate the analogy between the Bible and nature. As the earth
and heavens exhibit marvellous harmony in the midst of great
variety and discord, so in the Scriptures there exists a notable har¬
mony behind all the seeming discrepancies. (3) They prove that
there was no collusion among the sacred writers, for their differ¬
ences are such as would never have been introduced by their design.2
(4) They also show the value of the spirit as above the letter of
the word of God, and (5) serve as a test of moral character. To
the captious spirit, predisposed to find and magnify difficulties in
the divine revelation, the biblical discrepancies will be great stum-
blingblocks, and occasions of disobedience and cavil. But to the
serious inquirer, who desires to “ know the mysteries of the king¬
dom of heaven” (Matt, xiii, 11), a faithful study of these discrep¬
ancies will disclose hidden harmonies and undesigned coincidences
which will convince him that these multiform Scriptures are truly
the word of God.
1 An Examination of the Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible, pp. 30-40. Andover,
1874.
2 “ These discrepancies,” observes Wordsworth, “ being such as they are found to
be, are of inestimable value. They show that there has been no collusion among our
witnesses, and that our manuscript copies of the Gospels, about five hundred in num¬
ber, and brought to us from all parts of the world, have not been mutilated or inter¬
polated with any sinister design ; they have not been tampered with by any religious
sect for the sake of propagating any private opinion as the word of God. These dis¬
crepancies are, in fact, evidences of the purity and integrity of the sacred text.” —
The New Testament in the original Greek, with Notes and Introductions. Preface to
the Four Gospels, p xxii. Lond., 1859.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
533
CHAPTER XXXI.
ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS OF SCIENCE.
It has been alleged that the statements of Scripture and the results
of scientific research are in numerous instances opposed * , _
to one another. The charge appears to have begotten allegations and
in some devout minds a suspicion and fear that scien- issues-
tific research in the realm of nature is essentially hostile to religion.
On the other hand, there are those who seem to labour under a con¬
viction that the doctrine of a supernatural revelation, and a life
nourished by faith in a personal God, are inimical to the scientific
investigation of the laws and processes of nature and of life.
Others, again, have affirmed that the Bible was not given to teach us
natural science; that its great purpose is to teach morals and religion,
to instruct us in righteousness; and that, therefore, we need not be
disturbed if we do occasionally find its statements in conflict with
discoveries in science. Others have attempted various methods of
“ reconciling ” science and the Bible, and these have generally acted
on the supposition that the results of scientific discovery neces¬
sitate a new interpretation of the Scripture records, or call for
new principles of interpretation. The new discoveries, they say,
do not conflict with the ancient revelation; they only conflict with
the old interpretation of the revelation. We must change our her¬
meneutical methods, and adapt them to the revelations of science.
How for the thousandth time have we heard the story of Galileo
and the Inquisition.
We may well pause in the presence of these grave allegations
and issues, and consider a few self-evident propositions. Fundamental
It is not to be supposed that any fact of nature or his- considerations,
tory can be in conflict with the express declarations of the omnis¬
cient God. If there be an apparent conflict it must be that there
is some mistake or misunderstanding about the fact or about the
revelation. For it may be either that the fact alleged is not as
stated, or that the revelation has been misapprehended. If the
alleged fact is clear beyond all question, and yet stands in certain
conflict with a statement of divine revelation, it would furnish
valid ground for believing that that which purported to be a
revelation of God was spurious. Truths of whatever kind can
never be in real conflict with each other. And it is unworthy of a
534
PRINCIPLES OF
Christian believer to be disturbed with a fear that any well-estab¬
lished fact or law of nature can harm the interests of true religion.
We may welcome light and knowledge from whatever source, con¬
fident that the truth of God must and will stand all possible inves¬
tigation and trial. Hasty natures, however, indulging in pride of
intellect, or given to following the dictum of honoured masters,
may fall into grievous error in either of two ways: They may
shut their eyes to facts, and hold to a delusion in spite of evidence;
or they may become the obsequious victims of “ science falsely so
called.” That certainly is a false science which is built upon infer¬
ences, assumptions, and theories, and yet presumes to dogmatize as
if its hypotheses were facts. And that is a system of hermeneutics
equally false and misleading which is so flexible, under the pressure
of new discoveries, as to yield to the putting of any number of new
meanings upon an old and common word. The interests of sci¬
ence and religion alike require that we do no violence to the facts
of the one, or the written records of the other.
The principal points on which Science and the Bible have been
thought to be in conflict may be briefly considered under three
heads: (l) The record of miracles, (2) Descriptions of physical phe¬
nomena, and (3) The origin of the world and of man. A brief
discussion of these will show how large a proportion of the alleged
contradictions are based upon needless assumptions.
1. The Record of Miracles.
With those atheistic and pantheistic writers who deny the exist-
. . ence of a personal God the idea of a miracle is, of
Assumed im- r \
possibility of course, a monstrosity. The very possibility of mira¬
cles is by them denied, and they, accordingly, reject a
volume which teems from beginning to end with accounts of super¬
natural events. The deist also finds in the record of these miracles
what he regards as inconsistent with the constancy of nature’s
methods. The unchangeable Deity, he affirms, will never violate his
own laws. There is a uniform order in the whole round and course
of nature; the action and reaction of the forces of the universe are
permanent and sure, and it is contrary to experience and observa¬
tion to suppose that these abiding universal laws were ever violated
and set at naught by their divine Author. Such a supposition, it is
imagined, involves the idea that God allows his own laws to be vio¬
lated and dishonoured; or that he perceives defects in his works
which he would fain now remedy by arbitrary interposition. There
is no doubt but the popular mind has been greatly affected and
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
535
disposed to scepticism by these and similar teachings touching the
supposed impossibility of miracles.1
With the atheist and the pantheist the believer in a supernatural
divine revelation can have no ground in common. The No common
denial of a personal God, the creator and ruler of the ground be-
-j i • j ..ii n ~i . •• „ . tween Atheist,
world, is at war with the proioundest intuitions of the pantheist, and
human soul. It essentially gives the lie to the most Christian-
sacred convictions of the noblest minds, and makes a mockery of
all religious worship. All moral distinctions, all sense of guilt, all
workings of conscience, all yearnings of the heart after the living
God, are but so many forms and phases of delusion. With atheist
or pantheist, therefore, it would be folly to dispute on the subject
of miracles.
But the deist cannot consistently deny the possibility of miracles.
He accepts the doctrine of a Supreme Ruler, the crea- Deist cannot
tor and upholder of the universe, and any rational con- ^ny* possibility
ception of primordial creation involves all the essentials of miracles,
of a stupendous miracle. On what rational grounds, then, can he
assume or assert that the Supreme Creator will no more interpose
to check, or change, or modify for particular ends, the laws and
forces of the natural world? It will be found, we think, that the
common objections to miracles grow out of false definitions of the
miraculous, and baseless assumptions as to what constitutes the
order of nature. In order to place the whole subject in its proper
light three considerations are especially important:
1. Miracles are themselves parts of a divine order. So far from
being violations or transgressions of nature’s laws they Miracles parts
are striking manifestations of the majesty and power of of a divine or-
him who is the Supreme Author of law and harmony.
No interposition or interference of God with the order of nature is
without reason and design. An intelligent will, accompanied by
adequate power, may change the course of a river in order to save
or to subvert a city, but the introduction of such elhcient causes is
no violation of law. The arresting of disease, the stilling of a
tempest, the opening of the eyes of the blind, require only the
presence and action of adequate wisdom and power. No miracle
1 “ There are those,” says Fisher, “ who find it hard to believe in a miracle because
the word is associated in their minds with the notion of a capricious act, or of a make¬
shift to meet an unexpected emergency. They conceive of a miracle not as an event
planned and fitting into an established order, but as done in obedience to a sudden
prompting, as a kind of desperate expedient to prevent the consequences of a previous
neglect or want of forecast. Such an act, they properly feel, cannot be attributed to
God.”— Supernatural Origin of Christianity, p. 471.
536
PRINCIPLES OP
ever took place without a cause. Indeed, “ the law of nature’s con¬
stancy is subordinate to the higher law of change.” 1 Before we
can pronounce any miracle on record a violation of law we must be
competent to say that divine wisdom had no purpose to serve by
the working of such miracle. “The need of miracles,” observes
Fisher, “ is not founded on the existence of any defect in nature.
The system of nature is good, and is worthy of God. It is fitted,
in itself considered, to disclose the attributes of the Creator, and to
call forth feelings of adoration in the human mind. The defect is
not in nature. But the mind of man is darkened so that this pri¬
mal revelation is obscurely discerned; his character, moreover, is
corrupted beyond the power of self-recovery in consequence of his
apostasy from God. Now, if God shall mercifully approach with
new light and new help, why shall he not verify to man the fact of
his presence by supernatural manifestations of his power and good¬
ness ? In this case nature is used as an instrument for an ulterior
moral end. The miracle is not to remedy an imperfection in nature,
but is, like the revelation which it serves to attest, a product of
the condescension of God. He condescends to address evidence to
the senses, or to the understanding through the senses, in order to
open a way for the conveyance of the highest spiritual blessing to
mankind. Material nature, be it remembered, does not include the
end of existence in itself. It is a subordinate member of a vaster
system, and has only an instrumental value.” 2
2. It is important to observe, further, that God’s revelation to
God’s reveia- men was gradually given. It was communicated in
the1 IarT°and man^ Parts an(^ modes (Ileb. i, l), and its historic un¬
order of agreat folding and development were in accordance with a
movement0 of weH‘defined pian and order.3 “We have to contem-
which miracles plate,” says Fisher, “the striking peculiarity of this
great historic movement, which embraces the unfolding,
through successive stages or epochs, of a religion distinct in its
spirit as well as in its renovating power from all other religions
known among men. And we have to connect with this view a
survey of its subsequent diffusion and leavening influence in human
society. Comparing this religion with the native characteristics of
the people among whom it appeared, and from whose hands the
priceless treasure was at length delivered to mankind, we are to
1 See this proposition ably maintained and illustrated by Prof. Edward Hitchcock
in the Bibliotheca Sacra for July, 1863, pp. 489-561.
2 Supernatural Origin of Christianity, p. 502.
sSee on this subject the propositions and arguments of Walker, Philosophy of the
Plan of Salvation, chapters iii-x. Boston, 1855.
537
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTJCS.
ask ourselves if this religion, so pure and salutary, so enduring and
influential, so strong as to survive temporary eclipse, and withstand
through a long succession of ages, before the full light appeared,
an adversary as powerful as human barbarism and corruption, can
be the product of man’s invention. And whatever reason there is
for rejecting this supposition as irrational is so much argument for
v the Christian miracles. . . . Miracles appear especially at the sig¬
nal epochs in the progress of the gradually developing system of
religion/ ... In connexion with Moses, who marks an era in the
communication of the true religion; then, after a long interval, in
connexion with the prophets, who introduce an era not less peculiar
and momentous; and then, after a long suspension of miraculous
manifestation, in conjunction with the final and crowning epoch of
revelation, with the ministry of Christ and the founding of the
Church, the supernatural is seen to break into the course of history.
There is an impressive analogy between the spiritual creation or
renewal of humanity, and the physical creation, where successive
eras are inaugurated by the exertion of supernatural agency in the
introduction of new species, and after each epoch history is re¬
manded, as it were, to its natural course in pursuance of an estab¬
lished order. Miracle would seem to be the natural expression and
verification of an opening era in the spiritual enlightenment of man¬
kind, when new forces are introduced by the great Author of light
and life, and a new development sets in.” 2
3. Another and highly important consideration is that the mira¬
cles of Scripture are worthy of the Author of a divine The scripture
revelation. They are not prodigies put forth inerelv to miracles wor-
, , n -1 £ -i . i ® . 1 t m1 . J thy of the Au-
startle and confound the curious mmd. 1 he early rev- thor of reveia-
elations to the patriarchs by dreams and visions of the tion*
night, or by the ministry of angels, have no affinity with the myths
1 Hume’s famous argument, that miracles are contrary to experience, and that it is
easier to believe that any given testimony is false than that a law of nature was ever
violated, has received many answers. Fisher well observes that “ the fallacy does not
lie in the postulate that a miracle is contrary to experience ; for there is a logical pro¬
priety in this provisional assumption. But the fallacy lies in the assumption that a
miracle is just as likely to occur in the one place as m the other ; that we may as ra¬
tionally expect a miracle to be wrought in the matter of testimony, whereby the laws
of evidence are miraculously converted into a vehicle for deceiving and misleading
mankind, as to suppose a miracle in the physical world like the healing of the blind.
Hume’s argument is valid only on the hypothesis that God is as ready to exert super¬
natural power to make truthful men falsify as to perform the miracles of the Gospel.
Introduce the fact of a personal God, a moral government, and a wise and benevolent
end to be subserved through miraculous interposition, and Hume’s reasoning is
emptied of all its force.” — Supernatural Origin of Christianity, pp. 495, 496.
2 Supernatural Origin of Christianity, pp. 506-508.
538
PRINCIPLES OF
and legends of paganism. The miracles of the Exodus were both
an evidence of the divine mission of Moses and a series of judg¬
ments upon the idolatrous superstitions of Egypt. Each sign and
wonder was in style and character worthy of the God who spoke
the decalogue from the quaking mountain. The miracles that at¬
tended the ministry of later prophets had a pertinency which shows
them to have been grounded in divine and not in human wisdom.
But, especially, in the mighty works of the Son of God do we
observe a character that harmonizes with the purposes of redemp¬
tion. The miracles of Jesus are acts of tenderness and love, exhibi¬
tions of divine glory and wisdom, and at the same time symbolical
tokens of the mysteries of redemption. Even the miracle of judg¬
ment, the cursing of the barren fig-tree, abounds with suggestive
lessons of the highest moral value. Trench observes that the j>re-
tended prodigies of witchcraft, even if actually performed, were,
nevertheless, works which had no worthy significance; 1 “they were
not, what each true miracle is always more or less, redemptive acts;
in other words, works not merely of power, but of grace, each one
an index and a prophecy of the inner work of man’s deliverance,
which it accompanies and helps forward. But it was pre-eminently
thus with the miracles of Christ. Each one of these is in small,
and upon one side or another, a partial and transient realization of
the great work which he came that, in the end, he might accomplish
perfectly and forever. They are all pledges in that they are them¬
selves firstfruits of his power; in each of them the word of salvation
is incorporated in an act of salvation. Only when regarded in this
light do they appear not merely as illustrious examples of his
might, but also as glorious manifestations of his holy love.” 2
The miracles of Scripture, then, are to be regarded as historical
facts, and interpreted as other facts of history.
2. Descriptions of Physical Phenomena.
There are found in the Bible descriptions of natural phenomena,
allusions to the movement of the heavenly bodies, and narratives
1 This thought appears in the Recognitions of Clement, where Peter is represented
as opposing Simon Magus: “For tell me, I pray you, what is the use of showing
statues walking, dogs of brass or stone barking, mountains dancing, of flying through
the air, and such like things, which you say that Simon did ? But those signs which
are of the good One are directed to the advantage of men, as are those which were
done by our Lord, who gave sight to the blind and hearing to the deaf, raised up the
feeble and the lame, drove away sicknesses and demons, raised the dead, and did
other like things.” — Recognitions, etc., book iii, chap. 60, English translation, as in
Clark’s Ante-Nicene Library.
2 Trench, Notes on the Miracles, p. 31.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
539
of changes effected on the surface of the earth, which have been
alleged to be unscientific and inconsistent with facts. The instances
usually cited in proof of this charge are descriptions of the sun,
moon, and stars, allusions to their apparent movements, the account
of the sun and moon standing still, and the deluge of waters which
occurred in the days of Noah.
The statement that God made two great luminaries to rule re¬
spectively the day and the night, and set them, along supposed evi-
with the stars, in the expanse of heaven to give light faise^astrono-
upon the earth (Gen. i, 16, 17), is supposed to rest upon my.
the now' exploded Ptolemaic theory of the universe, according to
which the earth is the centre of the whole system, and sun, moon,
and stars revolve around it. With this accords the frequent men¬
tion of the rising of the sun and the going down of the same (Psa.
1, l). In Psa. xix, 4-6, the sun is poetically conceived as having
his tent or dwelling in the heavens* and coming forth out of his
chamber in the morning to run a race from one end of the heavens
unto the other. The poetical parts of Scripture abound in similar
descriptions of things in the earth and the heavens. All such allu¬
sions, it has been claimed, betray a false astronomy.
This class of objections, alleged as contradictions of science, can
scarcely now be regarded as ingenuous. Can anything guch expres_
be more evident than the fact that in descriptions of sions merely
. 1 £ the language
such phenomena the sacred writers use the language ot Df common
common life? In spite of all scientific advancement ufe*
the world still speaks, and probably ever will continue to speak, of
the sun’s rising and setting. The stars appear to the common
observer as so many bright lights set in the vault of heaven. To
an observer on the earth the sun and moon are the two great lights
of the sky, and the fact is not in the least altered by the discovery
that the moon is the earth’s satellite, and the earth is a compara¬
tively small planet revolving about the sun. To the human observ¬
er the sun is the great luminary; he rises and sets, and rules the
day; and this fact remains in spite of the discovery that many of the
stars are also luminaries immensely larger than our “ king of day.”
The Bible is written in the common and popular language of men,
not in the technical forms of science. And when we read such
poetic strains as that which embodies the striking similes of the
sun in Psa. xix, 4-6, we no more suppose the author to have been
teaching a false astronomy than we would accuse Longfellow of
such false science when he writes:
Silently, one by one, in the infinite meadows of heaven,
Blossomed the lovely stars.
540
PRINCIPLES OF
The standing still of the sun and moon at the command of Joshua
(Josh, x, 12-14) has been supposed to predicate a mir-
•Standing still v , 1 n % A . , , . ,
of the sun and acle incredibly stupendous. It was believed to yield
moon- such evidence that the earth was stationary, and that the
sun revolved around it that, when Galileo taught a contrary doc¬
trine, he was charged with formal heresy, and his scientific system
was declared by the Church of Rome to be “ expressly contrary to
the Scripture.” The literal interpretation of the passage naturally
assumed that the sun stopped short in mid-heaven at the fiat of
Joshua. Afterward, the general acceptance of the Copernican
system led to the supposition that the diurnal motion of the earth
was checked for a time, thus causing the sun to appear to stand
still. Probably no well-informed student of the Scriptures will
now accept either of these views. The two prevalent interpreta¬
tions of the passage, between which the best expositors are now
divided, may be designated the optical and the poetical. Those
who adopt the first-named exposition believe that we have here the
record of a miracle, which consisted in a supernatural refraction of
light. They suppose that after the sun had gone down, the light
was miraculously prolonged, and by refraction both sun and moon
appeared for a long time to be stationary above the horizon. This
hypothesis, however, scarcely accords with Joshua’s command for
the sun to stand still in Gibeon, and the statement that “the sun
stood still in the midst of the heavens” (Josh, x, 13), not over the
western horizon.
But commentators have been slow to note the fact that the pas-
sag^e in question is professedly a quotation from the
poetical quota- Book of Jasher. That book appears to have been a
compilation of national songs (comp. 2 Sam. i, 18), and
such a quotation should no more be pressed into a literal interpre¬
tation than the highly wrought passage from the nineteenth psalm
already noticed. Where the quotation begins and ends is some¬
what uncertain,1 but the whole passage, from verse 12 to verse 15,
has every appearance of an interpolation. As the Book of Jasher
contained David’s elegy it could not have been completed before
the time of David; but the Book of Joshua was probably written
long before that date. The song of Joshua’s victory, however,
1 It is commonly affirmed that the formula of citation must stand at the beginning
or end of the passage cited, and hence some hold that what follows the words, “ Is not
this written in the Book of Jasher ? ” (Josh, x, 13), do not belong to the book referred
to. But this is by no means certain. We may understand the formula of citation to
be thrown in parenthetically in the midst of the passage cited, and such appears to
be the case in this quotation.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
541
may have been written by an eyewitness of the battle, and may
have been directly quoted by the author of the Book of Joshua, for
such an anthology as the Book of Jasher would be likely to receive
additions from time to time, as one national song after another ob¬
tained popular currency. Considered therefore as a poetical quota¬
tion, the passage is not to be literally understood, and all supposed
conflict between its statements and scientific facts is at once set
aside. “The standing still of the sun and moon,” says Fay, “is no
more to be understood literally than that fighting of the stars from
their courses (Judges v, 20), or the melting down of the mountains
(Isa. xxxiv, 3; Amos ix, 13; Micah i, 4), the rending of the heav¬
ens (Psa. xviii, 9), or the skipping of Lebanon (Psa. xxix, 6), or the
clapping of hands by the trees in the field (Isa. lv, 12), or the leap¬
ing of the mountains and hills (Psa. cxiv, 6). It is the language of
poetry which we have here to interpret, and poetry, too, of the most
figurative, vehement kind, which honours and celebrates Joshua’s
confidence in God in the midst of the strife. In this the most posi¬
tive interpreters (Keil, Kurtz, Ilengstenberg), however they may
differ as to the particulars, and as to textual criticism, are perfectly
at one against a literal interpretation of the passage.”1
Another point at which science and the Bible have been alleged
to be in conflict is the narrative of the Deluge in Gen. Narrative of
vi-viii. The doctrine of a universal flood is beset with ttie Deluge,
insuperable difficulties. The shells and corals found in deposits at
the tops of high mountains, and which were once believed to fur¬
nish evidence of a universal deluge, are seen upon closer inspection
to be results of geologic action older than the age of Noah. They
are not scattered over the surface, as would have been the case if
they had been carried there by a flood of waters, but deposited
deep in the layers of the mountains as well as near the surface. It
is to be further observed that the loose scorke on the mountains of
Auvergne and Languedoc in France must have been disturbed and
swept away by a deluge that covered those heights. Yet the dust
and cinders of these volcanic craters bear witness that they have
remained undisturbed by any flood of waters from a period long
anterior to that of the time of Noah.
It may also be reasonably objected to a universal flood that the
salt waters of the fountains of the great deep, in overflowing the
1 Commentary on Joshua in Lange’s Biblework. The Speaker’s Commentary takes
substantially the same view: “The wh-ole passage may, and even ought, on critical
grounds to be taken as a fragment of unknown date and uncertain authorship, inter¬
polated into the text of the narrative, the continuity of which is broken by the intru¬
sion.” — Note at end of Chapter x.
542
PRINCIPLES OF
land, must have destroyed, in the course of nearly a year, all fresh-
x v. water fish, and plants and seeds of the land, none of
jections to its which appear to have been taken into the ark. Add
Universality. these considerations the inadequacy of any ark con¬
structed by human hands to contain pairs of all cattle, beasts, fowls,
and insects now known to exist upon the earth, together with food
sufficient to sustain them for a year. The different classes and spe¬
cies of living creatures are known to number hundreds of thousands.
They are distributed into groups and provinces, and many of them
seem to have been propagated from distinct centres of creation.
The animals of the polar regions and those of the tropics could not
long live together except by a protracted miracle. “To collect
specimens,” says Geikie, “ of all the species of terrestrial creatures
inhabiting the earth, it would be necessary not only to visit each
parallel of latitude on both sides of the equator, but to explore the
whole extent of each parallel, so as to leave out none of the separ¬
ate provinces. With all the appliances of modern civilization, and
all the labours of explorers in the cause of science throughout every
part of the world, the task of ascertaining the extent of .the animal
kingdom is probably still far from being accomplished. Not a year
passes away without witnessing new names added to the list of the
zoologist. Surely no one will pretend that what has not yet been
achieved by hundreds of labourers during many centuries could
have been performed by one of the patriarchs during a few years.
It was of course necessary that the animals should be brought
alive ; but this, owing to their climatal susceptibilities, was in the
case of many species impossible, and even with regard to those
which might have survived the journey, the difficulties of their
ti ansport must have been altogether insuperable.”1
It should further be added that the flooding of all continents and
islands so as to submerge the tops of the highest mountains would
increase the earth’s diameter by many miles; it would involve in¬
conceivable climatic changes over the whole surface of the globe,
add greatly to the force of its attraction, change its orbit round
the sun, and disturb the movements of all the other planets. In
short, the doctrine of a universal deluge involves a multiplicity
of such stupendous miracles that it cannot be accepted except
on statements and reasons of the most absolute and imperative
character.
But why should we assume or teach that the flood described in
Gen. vi-viii was universal? The assumption has arisen from a
supposed necessity of understanding such expressions as those in
1 Kitto’s New Biblical Cyclopedia, article Deluge.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
543
Gen. vi, 13 ; vii, 19, in their widest possible import. In the first
passage God says to Noah: “An end of all flesh has scripture usage
come before me,” and in the second : “ The waters pre- ga^Term^To
vailed very exceedingly npon the land, and all the high limited areas,
hills which were under all the heavens were covered.” These ex¬
pressions properly denote universality, but before any interpreter
decides their real import he must consider the standpoint of the
writer, and the familiar usage of such terms among the ancient
orientals. The narrative of the flood is probably the account of an
eyewitness. Its vividness of description and minuteness of details
contain the strongest evidence that it is such. It W'as probably a
tradition handed down from Shem to his descendants until it was
finally incorporated in the Books of Moses. The terms, “ all flesh,”
“ all the high hills,” and “ all the heavens,” denote simply all those
known to the observer. They are parallel with such expressions as,
“ This day I begin to put the dread and awe of thee upon the face
of the nations under all the heavens” (Deut. ii, 25; comp, iv, 19);
“ There is not a nation or kingdom where my lord has not sent to
seek thee” (1 Kings xviii, 10). So the allusion, in Job xxxvii, 3,
to the thunder and lightning, is essentially confined to a limited
area: “Under all the heavens he lets it loose, and his lightning
over the borders of the land.” A comparison of such passages as
Isa. lxvi, 23 ; Jer. xxv, 31, 32 ; and Ezek. xx, 48 ; xxi, 4, shows also
that “ all flesh ” is a familiar Hebraism denoting the great mass of
mankind, but not necessarily implying the absolute and universal
totality of the human race. The common translation of the Hebrew
word by our word earth is also misleading, and the source of
much false exegesis. This word denotes, according to the common
usus loquendi, a limited territory, a region or country, and may al¬
ways be properly rendered by our "word land. The Noachic deluge
submerged all the land under all the heavens (or sky) known to
the antediluvians. It was in all probability universal to the human
race, destroying the entire family of man except Noah and his
household. This opinion is corroborated by the traditions of a flood
preserved among all existing nations.
The entire territory occupied by the human race up to the time
of the deluge need not have been larger than the land The Noachic
of E^ypt, or of Canaan; but if it bad been'a hundred deluge local
times larger than either of those countries it would, slui but uniVersai
have been a comparatively small portion of the entire ^°rat^e hu‘
face of the earth. The considerations briefly indicated
above have led nearly all recent expositors to abandon the notion
of a universal deluge. All conflict with science is, accordingly,
544
PRINCIPLES OF
disposed of by these considerations, and no one can justly allege
that the biblical narrative of the flood is contradicted by scientific
discovery until he can prove that no limited section of the earth’s
surface has, since man began his existence, been subjected to such
a destructive judgment.
3. The Origin oe the World and of Man.
But the great battle-field on which theologians and scientists
have been most in conflict is the Mosaic narrative of
The Mosaic nar- ...
rative of crea- creation. This narrative is supposed to describe the
tl<m* origin of all things, including matter, life, and mind;
and the modern theories of evolution, and assertions of man’s im¬
mense antiquity, have seemed to command such an array of evi¬
dences that it has become very common to study Genesis with con¬
stant deference to these theories and assertions, and even to study
biology and evolution with equal deference to the Book of Genesis.
The highest aim of some writers would seem to be the construction
of an exegesis of Genesis that may at once harmonize with the
statements of the sacred writer and the hypothesis of leading scien¬
tists. These writers all assume that the creation described at the
beginning of Genesis must be identical with the primordial con¬
struction of the whole material universe, and the origin of all its
living tribes. And this kind of effort at exegesis became noticeable
long before the doctrine of Darwinian evolution attained the prom¬
inence and prevalence it now holds. Ever since the researches of
geologists and astronomers disclosed the great antiquity of our
globe, and the immensity of the starry universe, there has been a
ceaseless effort to “reconcile Science and the Bible.” In some of
these attempts devout men have seemed to lose all common sense
and reason, and have launched out upon a series of fanciful conjec¬
tures by which the revelation of God has been strangely handled.
From some of these attempted reconciliations it appears that good
men may unwittingly trifle with the Scriptures in the name of
science. That, surely, is a most unscientific process which ignores
■ the usus loquendi of the simplest words of a language, gives a
well-known term half a dozen different meanings in a single chap¬
ter, and lugs in conjecture and doubtful hypothesis to determine
the meaning of words familiar as our mother tongue.
Among the many modern attempts to interpret the Mosaic rec-
Geoiogicai meth- orc* there have arisen into prominence three differ-
od of interpreta- ent methods, which we may appropriately designate
the Geological, the Cosmological, and the Idealistic.
According to the first-named method, the six days of creation
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
545
correspond with six long periods of geological development tracea¬
ble in the crust of the earth. But more careful and extended re¬
searches fail to find in the testimony of the rocks an exact or even
substantial agreement between the geological epochs and the days
of Genesis. Even Hugh Miller, one of the most distinguished ad¬
vocates of this theory, is obliged to acknowledge that geology has
no epochs that correspond with the first, second, and fourth days of
the Mosaic narrative. Of these periods he says, “we need expect
to find no record in the rocks. The geologist, in his attempts to
collate the divine with the geologic record has only three of the
six periods of creation to account for — the period of plants, the
period of great sea-monsters and creeping things, and the period of
cattle and beasts of the earth.” 1 But this is well pronounced by a
later critic “ a very inadmissible assertion. Any one, be he geolo¬
gist, astronomer, theologian, or philologist, who attempts to explain
the Hebrew narrative, is bound to take it with all that belongs to
it; and, in truth, if the fourth day really represented an epoch of
creative activity, geology would be able to give some account of
it.” 2 Prof. C. H. Hitchcock seems to admit that geology has prop¬
erly no period corresponding to the fourth day, but he adopts the
notion that the Paleozoic Age of geologists may synchronize with
the fourth day of Genesis, and supposes “that the attention of the
prophet during this vision was so much occupied with the contem¬
plations of the astronomical bodies that he overlooked the progress
of events upon the earth, none of which were very different from
what had been previously perceived.” 3 Such a notion could scarce¬
ly have been entertained except under the pressure of a foregone
conclusion that the days of Genesis and the epochs of Geology
must somehow be synchronized.
Others, not satisfied with the dubious results of the geological
interpretation, have sought a wider and grander mean- The Cosmoiog-
ing in the first of Genesis by making it a cosmogony, icai theory.
They base their exposition, not merely on the results of geological
research, but more especially on the nebular hypothesis, and their
method of explaining Genesis may be called the Cosmological.
We have no fault to find with the nebular hypothesis of the origin
of the universe. We see no reason why God may not have brought
forth the world in that way as well as in any other imaginable.
But we object to the methods of interpretation by which that
hvpothesis is forced into an exposition of the simple narrative of
Genesis. Twisting words out of their natural and established usage.
1 Testimony of the Rocks, p. 159.
3 Relations of Geology to Theology,
2 Essays and Reviews, p. 269.
Bibliotheca Sacra for July, 1867, p. 444.
35
546
PRINCIPLES OF
and foisting into them the ideas of a later age, is a process essen¬
tially at war with all safe and sound interpretation. The ideas may
be true, and, in themselves, of the highest scientific value; but the
question of the interpreter must be: Are these the ideas intended
in this narrative ?
Prof. A. H. Guyot’s essay on “ Cosmogony and the Bible ’’Ms
regarded as one of the ablest expositions of Genesis
uyo s essay. £rom standpoint of the nebular hypothesis. He
considers the days as vast cosmogonic periods, or, as he calls them,
“organic phases of creation.” But he affirms that in the first chap¬
ter of Genesis the word day is used in jive different senses ! Who
knows, then, but the word God may have, in the same chapter, six
or seven different meanings — one for every day ? He also affirms
that the word earth means, in the second verse, “ the primordial
cosmic material out of which God was going to organize the heav¬
ens and the earth,” and is “an equivalent to matter in general.”
So it would appear that in the first verse of the Bible earth and
heavens are synonymous terms. “The same reasoning,” he adds,
“applies to the waters of the second verse. The Hebrew word
maim does not necessarily mean waters, but applies as well to the
fluid atmosphere; it is simply descriptive of the state of cosmic
matter comprised in the word earth.” And so he proceeds, dog¬
matically putting meanings to suit his convenience upon the most
simple words of the language. Upon such principles and such
reasoning we may, doubtless, make the Bible mean anything we
please. If words like day , land , heavens , and waters may be ex¬
plained as is done by this writer, can we fairly hope for any settled
principles of interpretation ? The explanations of the biblical nar¬
rative itself are treated as of no account. The sacred writer tells us
that God called the light day, and the dry land earth. Why, then,
should we set aside or ignore the meaning which he puts upon his
own words? But if one would be consistent when he insists that
earth means cosmical matter, and light means cosmical light, and
days mean cosmogonic ages, why should he not also complete the
cosmogonic symmetry of the picture with cosmical cattle and cos¬
mical man ?
Rorison’s ideal- Another class of interpreters, not satisfied with either
istic interpreta- the geological or cosmological exposition of Gene¬
sis, have attempted to escape all responsibility for a
literal interpretation by resolving the Mosaic narrative into a
1 Cosmogony and the Bible ; or, the Biblical Account of Creation in the Light of
Modern Science. Printed among the Papers of the Sixth General Conference of the
Evangelical Alliance, New York, lSVS.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
547
poem, “The Inspired Psalm of Creation.” This may be called the
Idealistic method of interpretation.1 “It is enough,” says Mr.
Rorison, “ if the Bible opens with a divinely illuminated survey of
creation such as readily assimilates the results of that research it
was never meant to supersede or forestall.” “Respect the paral¬
lelism,” he urges; “cease to ignore the structure, allow for the
mystic significance of the number seven, and all perplexities vanish.
The two groups of days are each perfectly regular, when group, in
its integrity, is collated with group; neither triad, if it is to exhaust
its own aspect of creation, can afford to part with or dislocate any
of its members; and the second triad, as a whole, is rightly and of
necessity second, as the first is rightly and of necessity first. And
yet it is self evident that if, for any reason, Ave trisect or break up
the groups, the true continuation of day one is not day two, but
day four; of day tAvo, not day three, but day five; of day three, not
day four, but day six. And thus the ‘days’ themselves are trans¬
figured from registers of time into definitives of strophes or stanzas
— lamps and landmarks of a creative sequence — a mystic drapery,
a parabolic setting — shadowing by the sacred cycle of seven the
truths of an ordered progress, a foreknown finality, an achieved
perfection, and a divine repose.”
Here Ave are carried out' of a narrative of facts and introduced
into a realm of fancy. Even days are “ transfigured ”
. _ _ ■ . Fanciful and
into some ideal conceptions that no common mind will unsound exe-
find it easy to grasp, and the whole array of “lamps gesis‘
and landmarks,” “ mystic drapery,” and “ parabolic setting ” are ac¬
knowledged to be only “ shadows” that may “ assimilate ” the results
of scientific research. This writer points out the artistic form of the
record, which he calls a poem, and refers also to the similar artistic
structure of the Decalogue and the Lord’s Prayer; but Avould he
affirm that those inimitable compositions are not to be literally
understood ? The mere correspondency, so often pointed out, of
the work of the first day to that of the fourth, and of the second to
the fifth, and of the third to the sixth, does not by any means make
the passage a poem; nor does the six times repeated “there was
evening and there was morning,” constitute any proper IdebreAv
parallelism. If such artificiality of structure be a reason for re¬
garding the whole as a “ mystic drapery,” merely indicative “ of an
ordered progress, a foreknown finality, an achieved perfection, and
a divine repose,” the genealogy of the fifth chapter may be resolved
into a similar “ shadowing,’7 for its structure is exceedingly regular,
1 See especially the essay of the Rev. G. Rorison, entitled the Creative Week, in Re¬
plies to Essays and Reviews.
548
PRINCIPLES OP
and the record of every name closes with the solemn refrain — lc and
he died.” But every thorough Hebrew scholar knows that in all the
Old Testament there is not to be found a more simple, straightfor¬
ward prose narrative than this first chapter of Genesis. Prof-
Strong has well said that it “ lacks every element of acknowledged
Hebrew poetry. In form it has neither the lyrical prosody of the
Psalms, nor the epic structure of Job; neither the dithyrambic
march of the prophets, nor the idyllic colloquies of the Canticles,
nor even the didactic collocations of the Proverbs and Ecclesiastes.
. . . As to sentiment, it lacks that lofty moral tone, that fine play
of the imagination, that abrupt change of subject and field, which,
even when other criteria fail, serve to indicate the rhapsodies of
the Hebrew bards. . . . Even Mr. Rorison fails to point out in its
body the requisite artistic constructiveness, or in its spirit the fire
of genius essential to all poetic effusions. Almost any descriptive
portion of the Old Testament would be found to exceed it in these
respects if carefully analyzed. The very next chapter of Genesis
is fully as poetical, whether in regard to its topics, its style, or its
composition; and thus, by the same loose, unscientific process, we
might (as many would fain do) reduce the accounts of Adam’s spe¬
cific formation, of a local Eden, and of the origin of human deprav¬
ity, to poetic legends. Just criticism forbids such a distortion of
prose to accommodate speculative preconception.” 1
Let us now inquire what a simple grammatico-historical interpre¬
tation of the Mosaic narrative most obviously indicates. Few, if
any, will deny that the entire description is adapted to impress the
reader with a feeling that the creation here recorded was sublimely
miraculous. We should, then, give strict attention to the primary
signification of the terms employed.
1 Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, article Cosmology.
At the beginning of his essay Mr. Rorison furnishes us with the following sound and
excellent observations : “ There is no attaining a satisfactory view of the mutual rela¬
tions of science and Scripture till men make up their minds to do violence to neither,
and to deal faithfully with both. ... We ought to harbour no hankering after so-
called ‘ reconciliations,’ or allow these to warp in the very least our rendering of the
record. It is our business to keep our ears open to what the Scripture says, not
exercise our ingenuity on what it can be made to say. . . . Those who seek the
repose of truth had best banish from the quest of it, in whatever field, the spirit and
the methods of sophistry. The geologist, for example, if loyal to his science, will
marshal his facts as if there were no Book of Genesis. Even so is it the duty of the
interpreter of the Mosaic text to fix [ascertain ?] its sense and investigate its struct¬
ure as though it were susceptible of neither collatioji nor collision with any science of
geology.” The marvel is, that having acknowledged such sound principles of inter¬
pretation, this writer should have gone on to construct one of the most fanciful ex¬
positions to be found in all the literature of the subject in hand.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
549
The words “heavens and earth” are so commonly used among us
moderns to denote the astronomic heavens, and the “ Heavens and
earth considered as a planet or globe, that interpreters ^row "usus^o"
have too generally overlooked the fact that, according quendi.
to the usus loquendi of the Hebrew language, DW and ptf mean
simply sky and land. In verse 8 it is said that God called the ex¬
panse E'ftW — heavens , and a comparison of other passages, where the
word occurs, will show that it commonly and almost universally
denotes the ethereal space above us in which the sun, moon, and
stars appear to move, from which the rain falls, and through which
the birds fly (comp. Gen. i, 14, 15, 17, 20, 26, 28, 30; ii, 19, 20; vi,
7-17; vii, 3-11; viii, 2, etc.). When occasionally used of the abode
of God it arises from the natural conception of him as the Most
High, who is exalted above the heavens (Psalms lvii, 5-11; cxiii,
4-6). We are further told, in verse 10, that God called the dry
ground pX — land. This familiar word nowhere denotes the cubic
contents of the earth considered as a globe. Such a conception
never appears to have entered the Hebrew mind. The word pX
occurs over three hundred times in the Book of Genesis alone, and
in most of those places cannot have any other meaning than land ,
an area of ground, a region or section of country. Furthermore,
the word *03, to create , does not, according to Hebrew usus loquendi ,
signify the original production of the material or substance of that
which is brought into being. This is merely the notion of some
modern writers. In Gen. i, 21, the word is applied to the bringing
forth of creatures which are expressly said to have been produced
from the waters, and in verse 27 it is used of man who was formed
in part of the dust of the ground (comp. Gen. v, 2). According to
both Gesenius and Fiirst, the radical signification of *OZi is that of
cutting , carving , and separating. We may, therefore, properly
understand it, in Gen. i, 1, as denoting the forming or construction,
out of pre-existing material, of the heavens and the land contem¬
plated in the biblical narrative of “ the beginning.”
The natural meaning of these words, then, should suggest to the
interpreter that in the opening chapters of Genesis he The first of
is not to look for a universal cosmogony. The heavens 2^^“^
and land of these chapters are the visible sky and coun- mogony.
try where the first human pair were created. The various species
of vegetable and animal life which were brought forth on that
land, or to multiply in those heavens and waters, were such as were
there to serve some interest of man, and he was to have dominion
over them. The primeval darkness on the face of the deep need
not be supposed to have been other than local and temporary.
550
PRINCIPLES OF
Dense mists, hiding sun, moon, and stars from view for many days,
and shrouding all things in utter gloom, have not unfrequently
covered a large portion of the earth’s surface (comp. Acts xxvii, 20).
The light of the first three days of the biblical narrative appears to
have been local and miraculous, like that which was in the dwell¬
ings of Israel when dense darkness covered all the rest of Egypt
(Exod. x, 23). The setting of the luminaries in the expanse on the
fourth day was phenomenal; not a primordial creation, but wdiat
was apparent from the land of Eden. What had taken place on
any other portion of the terrestrial globe, or what classes of living-
creatures may have elsewhere existed before or at the time of this
beginning of human history, are questions with which the sacred
writer was not at all concerned. A region no larger than any one
of several islands of Malaysia would have been ample for the his¬
tory of the whole human race before the flood. That land, how¬
ever, may have been a portion of one of the existing continents,
then for the first time elevated above the waters. The language
used would apply equally well to any limited region, whether of a
continent, a peninsula, or an island.1 The simplest and most natural
meaning of the narrative is that God at first upheaved such a land
from under the waters- of the deep, and, subsequently, when all
flesh had corrupted its way (Gen. vi, 12), he broke up the fountains
of the great deep and submerged that region with all its teeming
tribes. At the subsidence of the deluge the ark rested, not again
in Eden, but on the mountain of Ararat (Gen. viii, 4), from which
region the sons of Noah spread abroad. The original Eden may
have been obliterated by the flood, but the names of its countries
and rivers would very naturally have been transferred to the new
land and rivers discovered and occupied by the sons of Noah.
1 John Pye Smith, a generation ago, in his work on The Relation between the Holy
Scriptures and some Parts of Geological Science (4th edition, London, 1848), showed
by a variety of evidence “ that there must have been separate original creations, per¬
haps at different and respectively distant epochs ” (p. 49). He also maintained that
a stiict interpretation of the language of Genesis required no wider application of its
terms than to “ the part of our world which God was adapting for the dwelling of
man and the animals connected with him. Of the spheroidal figure of the earth it is
evident that the Hebrews had not the most distant conception.” fie understood the
land of Gen. i to be only “ a 'portion of the surface of the earth , adjusted and furnished
for most glorious purposes, in which a newly formed creation should be the object of
those manifestations of the authority and grace of the Most High, which shall to
eternity show forth his perfections above all other methods of their display” (pp. 189,
190). He conceived this portion of the earth “ to have been a part of Asia lying be¬
tween the Caucasian ridge, the Caspian Sea, and Tartary on the north, the Persian
and Indian seas on the south, and the high mountain ridges which run at considerable
distances on the eastern and the western flank.”
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
551
It would be manifestly unfair to say that an exposition of Gene¬
sis on so limited a scale is but another hypothesis as This expiana-
futile as the Geological, the Cosmological, or the Ideal- tion of Gen- 1
lstic. b or let it be observed that it rests, as its principal icai theory, but
claim for acceptance, upon a strict grammatico-histor-
ical interpretation of the language of the sacred writer, tation.
Moreover, it accords most perfectly with the scope and plan of the
entire Book of Genesis. We have shown above (pp. 211, 212) how
the author prefaces his tenfold history of generations with an ac¬
count of the creation of the land where the first man appeared;
and Gen. i, 1, is, properly, the heading of that prefatory narrative,
just as each of the ten subsequent sections has its appropriate title.
It is incorrect to say, as some have done, that the first chapter is a
narrative of the universal creation, and the second chapter an ac¬
count of Eden and Paradise. A discriminating analysis shows that
chapters i-ii, 3, is the narrative of the beginning , or creation of the
heavens and land, and chapters ii, 4-iv, 26, a record of the genera¬
tions (or evolutions) of the same heavens and land, dating from
the day when the Edenic growths began.1
Setting aside the assumption, therefore, that the first of Genesis
is an outline of universal cosmogony, and following the simple
grammatico-historical sense of the language, we find a more natural
exposition of what has so sadly perplexed the harmonists. All
grounds of controversy between science and the Bible are at once
removed.2 The first of Genesis describes a local and limited crea¬
tion. How large a region it affected, and where that land was
situated, are questions that now admit of no answer. It is the
record of a sevenfold miracle, projected by a well-defined plan and
order through the first week of historic time. It furnishes the les¬
sons of a personal God, the eternal, the all-wise, the omnipotent,
and thus stands opposed to polytheism and pantheism. It exhibits
God as the Creator, the great First Cause of things. It shows how
matter is his creature, and subject to his will, and how life — ;vege-
table, animal, and spiritual — originates with him. It shows an
orderly progress from lower to higher, and the correspondency
between the work of the two triads of days serves to illustrate
the wisdom and the knowledge of God. It may be that the six
days of creative procedure here narrated are typical of correspond¬
ing ages of cosmical development, and a wider and more complete
1 See further on pp. 567, 568.
* That is, the science which allows the possibility of miracles. With that infidel
science, which spurns the thought of a miraculous creation, the evangelical inter¬
preter can have no argument on the Mosaic narrative.
552
PRINCIPLES OF
induction of facts may yet confirm this supposition. But even if
now confirmed, it would not add essentially to the great lessons of
order and progress furnished by the literal interpretation of the
biblical record. For it does not follow that God must have created
or developed each part of the whole universe in the same manner.
There were doubtless other beginnings, and there are probably in¬
numerable forms of life and ranks and orders of living creatures in
other spheres which no descendant of Adam has ever been able to
discover, and which it is no purpose of the Bible to reveal. Let
it be once conceded that God literally and miraculously formed the
Eden-land and sky, and all that they contained, in the manner de¬
scribed in Genesis, and it necessarily follows a fortiori that he also
must be the absolute and universal Creator. And if the noble lessons
above indicated are taught, as Mr. Rorison thinks, in a grand cos¬
mological poem, whose artistic periods mean anything or every¬
thing in general, and nothing in particular, how much more forcibly
are they taught in a historical record of literal fact.
Rightly to interpret the Mosaic narrative, therefore, it is neces-
No valid pre- sary to disabuse our minds of the assumption that it
sumption against j revelation of the primordial origin of the universe,
a limited crea- r 0
tion. How and when God originated matter, and what were
the first forms and modes of life — whether of plants, insects, rep¬
tiles, fish, fowls, beasts, cattle, or angels — it appears not the pur¬
pose of revelation to inform us; but this beginning of the Bible
does inform us of the miraculous creation of man in the image of
God. If to some minds, familiar with cosmological conceptions, it
seems to belittle the biblical creation to confine it to a limited por¬
tion of the earth, let it be considered whether the plagues of Egypt
were belittled by being confined solely to the land of the Nile.
Was it no sublime and impressive miracle that when oppressive
darkness covered Egypt for three days light filled the dwellings
of Israel in the land of Goshen ? Does it detract from the life and
mighty works of Jesus that they were confined to the little land of
Canaan? Was the judgment of the deluge less signal because
confined to only a portion of the globe ? As a more careful atten¬
tion to the usage of Hebrew terms has led nearly all modern exe-
getes to abandon the notion that the Noachic deluge was universal,
so we believe a closer study of the Hebrew text of Genesis i and ii
will set aside the idea that those chapters were designed to furnish
a universal cosmogony. To have prefaced the account of the crea¬
tion of man with a description of the origin of the entire universe
might have been as much out of place as to have introduced the
Gospel of Jesus with a history of all the angels of God.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
550
CHAPTER XXXII.
HARMONY AND DIVERSITY OP THE GOSPELS.
The life of Jesus forms a tarningpoint in the history of the world.
The Old Testament Scriptures show the steady trend The life of Je-
of history toward that eventful epoch. The prophets ^nt j^humfn
with one voice place the coming of the Christ “ in the history,
end of the days” (Gen. xlix, 1; Num. xxiv, 14; Isa. ii, 2; Dan. x, 14),
and conceive his advent and reign as the ushering in of a new age.
The God of the prophets spoke, in the last days of the old aeon, in
the person of his incarnate Son, “ whom he made heir of all things,
through whom also he made the ages ” (rovg aiojvag, the aeons, Ileb.
i, 2). The dea®h and consequent exaltation of Jesus were the
crucial hour of the world’s history (John xii, 23-33), and from that
hour there was a new departure in the course of human affairs.
After the Gospel of the Messianic kingdom had been preached *in
the whole Roman world, for a witness to all the nations of the
same (Matt, xxiv, 14), the end of that age came. For it was neces¬
sary, befqre the old economy came to its decisive end, that the new
Gospel should first obtain a sure standing in the world. The utter
overthrow of the Jewish polity and state, and the awful ruin of
that wicked city where the Lord was crucified, marked the consum¬
mation of that aeon. And from that point onward the triumphs of
the cross extend. It is but natural, therefore, that the four gos¬
pels, being the authoritative records of the life and words of the
Lord Jesus, are esteemed the most precious documents of Chris¬
tianity.
Each of the four gospels presents us with a life picture of the
Lord Jesus, and assumes to tell what he did and what TheGospeisthe
he said. But while narrating many tilings in common, conflict^
these four witnesses differ much from one another, tween faith
How to account for so many differences in the midst of and unbelie*-
so many coincidences has always been a perplexing study among
expositors. In modern times the rationalistic critics have pointed
to the apparent discrepancies of the gospels as evidences against
their credibility, and these most cherished records of the Church
have become the central point of controversy between faith and
unbelief. The rationalists all concede that the man Jesus lived and
died, but that he rose again from the dead, according to the gospels,
554
PRINCIPLES OF
they stoutly deny, and resort to all manner of conjectures to
account for the uniform and universal faith of the Church in his
resurrection. The common sense of all Christendom logically con¬
cludes that if Jesus Christ arose from the dead that miracle at once
confirms the credibility of the gospels, and accounts for the marvel¬
lous rise, the excellency and present power, of the Christian religion.
It proves that its origin was supernatural and divine. But if the
miracle of Christ’s resurrection he a falsehood, the entire Christian
system, which rests upon it, is a stupendous fraud. Well might
Paul write : “ If Christ has not been raised, vain then is our preach¬
ing, vain also your faith, and we are found even false witnesses of
God, because we witnessed respecting God that he raised up the
Christ” (1 Cor. xv, 14, 15).
Many writers, ancient and modern, have undertaken to construct
Attempts at a (so-called) Harmony of the Gospels.1 They have adopted
G0ospeiUCHar- vai*i°us methods of explaining the several discrepancies,
monies. and of constructing one harmonious narrative out of the
four different accounts of the life of Christ. Eusebius compiled an
arrangement of the gospels in ten canons or tables, 'according as
the different events are related by one or more of the evangelists.
Thus, under one head he brought those passages that are common
to all the gospels; under another those that are found only in one
gospel; in three other tables he exhibited those facts which are
common to any three of the gospels, and in five others those that
are common to any two. At a later period effort was directed more
to the combining of the four gospels into one chronological order,
and then the great question arose, Which of the evangelists gives
us the true order of events ? Some maintained that all four gos¬
pels give the events of the Lord’s life in their true chronological
order, and wherever the events are arranged differently by different
writers we should understand that the transactions in question oc¬
curred more than once. Others strenuously maintained that chrono¬
logical order is not observed by any of the evangelists, while others
were uncertain which particular evangelist is the best chronologi¬
cal guide, some preferring Matthew’s arrangement, others Luke’s,
inasmuch as he professes to set forth things in their true order
(Kadegijc, Luke i, 3). Cartwright follows the arrangement of Mark,
1 The most valuable works on the Harmony of the Gospels are those of J. Macknight
(London, 1756), W Newcome, in Greek (Dublin, 1778), and English (1802), G. Town¬
send (London, 1825), edited by T. W. Coit (Boston, 1837), E. Robinson,’ in Greek
(Boston, 1845), and English (1846), J. Strong, in English (New York, 1852), and
Greek (1854), W. Stroud, in Greek (London, 1853), Tischendorf, Synopsis Evangelica
(New edition, Leipsic, 1864), F. Gardiner, in Greek and English (Andover, 1871).
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
550
and John’s Gospel, having comparatively few things in common
with the others, is generally believed to present the true chronolog¬
ical order of the matters it records.
The harmonists have furnished many valuable expositions, to¬
gether with many solutions of the alleged discrepancies Use0f Harmo-
of the gospels. But as far as they have attempted to nies*
combine the four gospels into one continuous narrative, and settle
positively the exact chronological order of events, they have rather
hindered than helped a satisfactory understanding of these price¬
less records. Such a process brings these lifelike and independent
narratives to a test they were never meant to meet, and assumes a
standard of judgment that is both unscientific and unfair. But
most of the later harmonists concede that it was no purpose of the
evangelists to compose a complete account of the life and works of
Jesus, and that all of them record some things without strict regard
to the order of time. “The true use of harmonies,” says J. A.
Alexander, “is threefold: exegetical, historical, and apologetical.
By mere juxtaposition, if judicious, the gospels may be made to
throw light upon each ether’s obscure places. By combination — not
mechanical, but rational; not textual, but interpretative — harmonies
put it in our power not to grind, or melt, or boil four gospels into
one, but out of the four, kept apart, yet viewed together, to extract
one history for ourselves. And, lastly, by the endless demonstra¬
tion of the possible solutions of apparent or alleged discrepancies,
even where we may not be prepared to choose among them, they
reduce the general charge of falsehood or of contradiction, not only
ad absurdum , but to a palpable impossibility. How can four inde¬
pendent narratives be false or contradictory which it is possible to
reconcile on so many distinct hypotheses ? The art of the most
subtle infidelity consists in hiding this convincing argument behind
the alleged necessity of either giving a conclusive and exclusive
answer to all captious cavils and apparent disagreements, or aban¬
doning our faith in the history as a whole. This most important
end of gospel harmonies has been accomplished.” 1
An intelligent and profitable study of the gospels requires atten¬
tion especially to three things: (1) Their origin; (2) The Three consid-
distinct plan and purpose of each gospel, and (3) The erations.
marked characteristics of the several gospels. These considera¬
tions, leading as they do to a proper understanding of the gospel
records, and to the solution of their discrepancies, are really so
many hermeneutical principles to be applied in any thorough ex¬
position of these records.
1 Article on Harmonies of the Gospels in the Princeton Review, vol. xxviii, p. 105.
556
PRINCIPLES OF
The most cursory examination of the four gospels must show the
origin of the observant critic that they are not, in any proper sense,
Gospels. formal histories. Nor do they assume to be complete
biographies. There is, really, nothing like them in the whole
range of literature. They manifestly sprung from a common
source, and they all agree in recording more or less of the life,
words, works, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. But whether
that common source were written documents or oral traditions has
long been a matter of controversy. Some have maintained the
existence of an original gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic ; others an
original gospel in Greek; while others have supposed the earlier writ¬
ten gospel was supplemented by apostolical traditions.1 But the
hypothesis of an oral gospel, embodying the substance of the apos¬
tolic preaching, is now very generally held as the principal source
of our four gospels. “The hypothesis of an oral gospel,” says
An original Westcott, “ is most consistent with the general habit
oral Gospel. Gf the Jews and the peculiar habit of the apostles ; it is
supported by the earliest direct testimony, and in some degree im¬
plied in the apostolic writings. The result of the examination of
the internal character of the gospels -is not less favourable to its
adoption than the weight of external evidence. The general form
of the Gospels points to an oral source. A minute biography, or a
series of annals, which are the simplest and most natural forms of
writing, are the least natural forms of tradition, and the farthest
removed from the evangelical narratives, which consist of striking
scenes and discourses, such as must have lived long in the memories
of those who witnessed them. Nor are the gospels fashioned only
on an oral type; they are fashioned also upon that type which is
preserved in the other apostolic writings. The oral gospel, as far
as it can be traced in the Acts and the Epistles, centered in the
crowning facts of the passion and the resurrection, while the earlier
ministry of the Lord was regarded chiefly in relation to its final
issue. In a narrative composed on such a plan it is evident that
the record of the last stage of Christ’s work would be conspicuous
for detail and fulness, and that the events chosen to represent the
salient features of its earlier course would be combined together
without special reference to date or even to sequence. Viewed in
the light of its end the whole period was one in essence, undivided
1 For an account of the various theories of the origin of the gospels, see Introduc¬
tions to the New Testament by Eichhorn, De Wette, Bleek, Davidson, etc., and
Marsh’s Translation of Michaelis’ Introduction to the New Testament, Westcott’s In¬
troduction to the Study of the Gospels, pp. 174—216, and the biblical dictionaries and
cyclopaedias under the word Gospels.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
557
by years or festivals, and the record would be marked not so much
by divisions of time as by groups of events. In all these respects
the synoptic gospels exactly represent the probable form of the
first oral gospel. They seem to have been shaped by the pressure
of recurring needs, and not by the deliberate forethought of their
authors. In their common features they seem to be that which the
earliest history declares they are, the summary of the apostolic
preaching, the historic groundwork of the Church.” 1
But granting the earliest form of the gospel narrative to have
been oral, that concession is far from determining the XT v .
particular origin of our present gospels. And it ought certainty as to
to be agreed among discerning critics that, from the ort^ot^h'
nature of the case, in the absence of sufficient evidence, GosPel-
no absolute certainty can be attained. How and when Matthew and
Mark wrote, what was the special occasion of their writing, how far
they may have used written documents, and what understanding the
apostles and evangelists may have had among themselves about
writing down the words and works of their Lord, are all questions
which admit of no positive answer. It is not the province of a
work on hermeneutics to discuss the different theories of the origin
of the written gospels, but to define principles of procedure essen¬
tial to any profitable discussion of the subject. And it is all im¬
portant to bear in mind that 'where absolute certainty on a given
question is impossible, dogmatic assumptions must be avoided, and
considerate attention should be bestowed upon any reasonable sup¬
positions which will help to elucidate the problem. In the absence
of external testimony the gospels themselves, and other New Test¬
ament books, may be expected to suggest the best indications of
the origin and aim of any one of the gospels. It appears that it
was regarded as an essential qualification for apostleship to have
seen the Lord (Acts i, 21, 22; 1 Cor. ix, 1). And is it not every
way reasonable to suppose that the apostles had an understanding
among themselves as to what principal facts of the Lord’s life
should be embodied in their preaching? May it not Probable sup
have been agreed among them that Matthew and John positions as to
should each write a gospel of the Lord? At one time their oriKin*
it was agreed, according to Paul (Gal. ii, 9), that James, Peter, and
John should go as apostles to the Jews, and Paul and Barnabas to
the Gentiles. The council of the apostles and elders at Jerusalem,
described in Acts xv, shows how carefully matters of general inter¬
est to the Church were discussed by the great leaders. Is it likely,
then, that so important a matter as the publication of authoritative
1 Introduction to the Gospels, pp. 212, 213, Boston, 1862.
558
PRINCIPLES OF
accounts of the Christ would have been neglected by them ? There
was a spying abroad in the Church that John should not die (John
xxi, 23). Whatever its precise meaning, it may have been the
occasion of his putting off the composition of his gospel until all
the rest of the apostles had passed away. The ancient tradition
that Mark’s Gospel is essentially that of Peter, and Luke’s essen¬
tially that of Paul, is corroborated by their general character and
form. With those who accept the apostolic origin and divine in¬
spiration of the four gospels there is no reasonable ground for deny¬
ing that these records were put forth by a common understanding
of the apostles and elders of the Church, and for the purpose of
providing the churches everywhere with an authoritative testimony
of the life and works of the Lord Jesus. It appears from Luke’s
preface (Luke i, 1) that many persons took in hand, at an early day,
to publish narratives of the current oral gospel, namely, the things
that were looked upon as fully accomplished by God in the person
of Jesus, and before the eyes of thos£ who were with him from the
first. This fact probably made it expedient that the great events of
that gospel should be set forth by apostolic authority, and when at
length these four authoritative records went forth to the churches,
they supplanted all others, and have ever commended themselves to
the faith of Christian believers in all lands.
Further suggestions as to the origin of the four gospels will
Distinct plan aPPear as we proceed to inquire into the distinct plan
and purpose of and purpose of each. Is it reasonable to suppose that
each Gospel. these g0Spel records were composed and sent forth
among the early churches without any definite plan and purpose ?
Are they merely so many collections of fragmentary traditions
thrown together haphazard ? When an event recorded by one is
omitted by another, are we to suppose that the omission arose
from ignorance of the event ? To suppose the affirmative of any
one of these questions would seem highly absurd, for each of the
four gospels contains so many evidences of definite design, and so
many inimitable word-pictures, that we cannot believe* that any
authors, competent for the writing of such books, would have put
them forth without orderly arrangement and without special pur¬
pose. It is far more probable that each evangelist had a reason
for what he omitted as well as for what he recorded.
Irenseus gives the following account of the gospels: “Matthew
Tradition Of the issued a written gospel among the Hebrews in their
early Church. own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at
Rome, and laying the foundation of the Church. After their de¬
parture, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
559
down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke
also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the gospel preached
by him. Afterward, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had
leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a gospel during his resi¬
dence at Ephesus in Asia.”1 With this general statement of Ire-
nseus all ancient history and tradition substantially agree.
A cursory examination of Matthew’s Gospel will discover its
special adaptation to Jewish readers. The first verse,
m true Jewish style, declares it to be “The Book of pel adapted to
the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the theJew*
son of Abraham.” The great purpose of this gospel throughout is
to exhibit Jesus as the Messiah of whom the prophets had spoken,
the divine founder of the kingdom of God. Hence he makes more
extensive and more elaborate use of Old Testament prophecy than
any other of the evangelists. These prominent features of the first
gospel are certainly a fair indication of its special purpose.
The ancient tradition that Mark’s Gospel is substantially that of
Peter,2 is confirmed by the general style, scope, and plan Mark,g Gospel
of the gospel itself. Peter’s active and rapid manner adapted to the
would naturally dictate a condensed and pointed gospel. K'oman taste-
His ministry to such Gentile converts as Cornelius would be likely
to show the need of an account of the Lord Jesus especially adapted
to that class of minds. Mark’s Gospel well meets this ideal. It
omits genealogies and long discourses. It has comparatively few
citations from Old Testament prophecy. It portrays the life of
Jesus as that of a mighty conqueror. It was certainly adapted to
meet the tastes of the Roman mind, whose ideals of rapidity, power,
and triumph were well expressed in the famous words of Caesar, “ I
came, I saw, I conquered.”
Luke’s Gospel, declared by the voice of the most ancient tradition
1 Against Heresies, book iii, chap, i, 1. That Matthew’s Gospel was originally writ¬
ten in Hebrew, or Aramsean, but early put forth in Greek by the hand or under the
oversight of Matthew himself, is now the opinion of many of the best biblical scholars.
But the arguments pro and con may be seen in Meyer, Commentary on Matthew, In¬
troduction ; Alford, Greek Testament, Prolegomena ; Introduction to New Testament
by Hug, De Wette, Bleek, Davidson, etc., and Biblical Dictionaries of Smith, Kitto,
and M’Clintock and Strong.
2 Eusebius says that Peter, having established the Gospel among the Romans, “ so
greatly did the splendour of piety enlighten the minds of his hearers, that it was not
sufficient to hear but once, nor to receive the unwritten doctrine of the Gospel of God,
but they persevered in every variety of entreaties to solicit Mark, as the companion
of Peter, that he should leave them a monument of the doctrines thus orally com¬
municated in writing. Nor did they cease their solicitations until they had prevailed
with the man, and thus became the means of that history which is called the Gospel
according to Mark.” — Eccl. Hist., book ii, chap, xv (Bohn’s Ed.).
560
PRINCIPLES OF
to be the substance of Paul’s preaching,1 is pre-eminently the
Luke’s the S0SPe^ °f the Gentiles. It deals more than any other
Pauline Gospel gospel with Jesus’ words and works for the whole
to the Gentiles. worj(j< Luke alone records the mission of the seventy.
He alone records the parable of the Good Samaritan, and that of
the Prodigal Son. He narrates the journey and ministry in Pergea,
a comparatively heathen land. But while adding many things of
this kind, he also sets forth in his own way the main facts recorded
in Matthew and Mark.2 And the three together, because of the
general view they give of the same great outline of facts, are called
the Synoptic Gospels.
Not without reason has the Gospel of Luke been believed to have
special adaptations to the mind of the Greeks. As a mighty uni¬
versal conqueror was the grand ideal of a Homan, so the perfection
of humanity was the dream of the noblest Grecian intellect. Luke’s
orderly narrative, with all thosq delicate traits which none but
the “beloved physician” could so well detail, is pre-eminently the
gospel of the Son of man, the gospel of universal redemption.3
The Gospel of John has manifestly a specific design different
John’s the spir- ^rom that °f the other gospels. Its lofty spiritual tone,
ituai Gospei of its fulness of doctrine, and its profound conceptions of
the life of faith. t^e Gf tpe Lord, arrest the attention of all
readers. “The Synoptic Gospels,” says Westcott, “contain the
gospel of the infant Church; that of St. John the gospel of its
1 Irenaeus Against Heresies, iii, 1. Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., book vi, chap, xxv, where
Origen is quoted as saying: “The third Gospel is that according to Luke, the gospel
commended by Paul, which was written for the converts from the Gentiles.”
2 The Gospel of St. Paul,” says Westcott, “is, in its essential characteristics, the
complementary history to that of St. Matthew. The difference between the two may
be seen in their opening chapters. The first words of the Hebrew evangelist gave the
clue to his whole narrative; and so the first chapter of St. Luke, with its declarations
of the blessedness of faith, and the exaltation of the lowly, lead at once to the point
from which he contemplated the life of Him who was ‘ to give light to them that sit
in darkness and in the shadow of death.’ The perfect manhood of the Saviour, and
the consequent mercy and universality of his covenant, is his central subject, rather
than the temporal relations or eternal basis of Christianity. In the other gospels we
find our King, our Lord, our God ; but in St. Luke we see the image of our great
High Priest, ‘made perfect through suffering, tempted in all points as we are, but
without sin,’ so that each trait of human feeling and natural love helps us to complete
the outline and confirms its truthfulness.”— Introduction to the Study of the Gospels,
pp. 370-372.
s See Da Costa, The Four Witnesses, pp. 185-225, and Prof. D. S. Gregory, Why
Four Gospels ? pp. 207-276. In both these valuable works the idea that Matthew’s
is the gospel for the Jew, Mark’s for the Roman, Luke’s for the Greek, and John’s
for the Church is elaborated with much detail. Gregory, however, at some points,
carries the matter to an undue extreme.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
561
maturity. The first combine to give the wide experience of the
many ; the last embraces the deep mysteries treasured up by the
one. All alike are consciously based on the same great facts ; but
yet it is possible, in a more limited sense, to describe the first as
historical, and the last as ideal; though the history necessarily
points to truths which lie beyond all human experience, and the
‘ideas’ only connect that which was once for all realized on earth
with the eternal of which it was the revelation.” 1 Clement of
Alexandria, as quoted by Eusebius,'2 also observes: “John, last of
all, perceiving that what had reference to the body in the gospel
of our Saviour was sufficiently detailed, and, being encouraged by
his familiar friends, and urged by the Spirit, he wrote a spiritual
gospel.” John’s Gospel is pre-eminently the gospel of the word of
God. It deals especially with the mystery of God in Christ, and
sets forth the Lord as the life of men and the light of the world.
It is a revelation of the life of faith in the Son of God. It was writ¬
ten “that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God;
and that, believing, ye may have life in his name” (John xx, 31). 3
Keeping in mind the leading idea and aim of each of the four
gospels, we may study their several characteristics to Characteristics
advantage. It will often be found that what at first of the several
arrests attention as an inconsistency is an evidence of evan^ellsts*
the scrupulous fidelity of the evangelist. What sceptical critics
have pronounced unaccountable omissions may be evidences of spe¬
cial design. The vivid portrayal of events, the little incidents true
to life, the touches of pathos, the forms of expression which none
but eyewitnesses of the events could use, are a mightier proof of
the credibility of the gospels than all the alleged discrepancies are
of their incredibility.
Considering now, for example, the Gospel of Matthew as de¬
signed especially for Jewish readers, how natural for him Notlceable
to announce it as the book of the generation of Jesus characteristics
Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. How to
his purpose to describe the birth of Jesus, in the days of Herod the
1 Introduction to Gospels, p. 254. 2 Ecclesiastical History, vi, 14.
3 Thus Westcott, “The subject which is announced in the opening verses is realized,
step by step, in the course of the narrative. The word ‘ came to his own, and they
‘received him not;’ but others ‘received him,’ and thereby became ‘sons of God.’
This is the theme which requires for its complete treatment, not a true record of events
or teaching, but a view of the working of both on the hearts of men. The ethical
element is co-ordinate with the historical ; and the end which the evangelist proposes
to himself answers to this double current of his gospel. He wrote that men might
believe the fact that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and believing — by spiritual
fellowship — might have life in his name.” — Introduction to Gospels, pp. 2*76, 277.
36
562
PRINCIPLES OF
king, as one that was born King of the Jews, and born in Bethlehem,
according to the prophets. How the Sermon on the Mount is pre¬
sented in one connected whole, as if it wTere a republication of the
ancient law of Sinai in a new and better form. How the series of
miracles in the eighth and ninth chapters follows as if designed to
evidence the divine power and authority of this new Lawgiver and
King. The calling, ordaining, and sending out the twelve disciples
(chap, x) was like the election of a new Israel to reclaim the twelve
tribes scattered abroad. The seven parables of chap, xiii are a
revelation of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, the kingdom
which he, as the Christ of God, was about to establish. Then fol¬
lows ample record of the conflict between this King of the Jews
and the scribes and Pharisees, who looked for another kind of
Messianic kingdom (xiv-xxiii). The great apocalyptic discourse of
chaps, xxiv and xxv discloses the end of that age as in the near
future, and is in striking analogy with the spirit and forms of Old
Testament prophecy. The recori} of the last supper, the betrayal,
the crucifixion, and the resurrection, completes the picture of the
great Prophet, Priest, and King. The entire book has thus a unity
of purpose and of detail admirably adapted to be the gospel to the
Hebrews, and to show to all the thoughtful in Israel that Jesus was
indeed the Messiah of whom the prophets had spoken. Moreover,
while thus breathing the Hebrew spirit, it has fewer explanations
of Jewish customs than the other gospels.
Many have deemed it strange that Matthew says nothing about
Omission’s of the first miracle of Jesus, at Cana, or of the healing at
pels6 mi tf with- Capernaum of the nobleman’s son, or of the resurrec-
out a purpose, tion of Lazarus, facts of such great interest. These
notable miracles are omitted in all the synoptic gospels, and some
have rushed to the conclusion that they were unknown to Matthew,
Mark, and Luke. Much more reasonable is the suggestion of Up-
ham, that in the earlier oral gospel, preached everywhere by the
apostles, and represented in substance in the synoptic gospels, it
was agreed, as a matter of prudence, to abstain from any mention
of living persons who would be exposed to peril by such a publica¬
tion of their connexion with Jesus. The persecution that* arose
upon the death of Stephen would naturally seek out the relatives
of the hated Nazarene, and any other parties whose testimony
mightily confirmed the divine power of Jesus. The evangelists and
apostles would not needlessly expose the nobleman or his son, who
were probably still living at Capernaum. They would not publish
the home of the relatives of the mother of Jesus, where he wrought
his first miracle, nor jeopardize the lives of Mary and Martha and
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
563
their friends at Bethany by sending forth a publication likely to
intensify the feeling that was already so violent against them.1
The above considerations are sufficient to set aside all arguments
against the genuineness and credibility of the gospels, which are
based upon omissions which modern critics may deem strange. To
the beloved disciple, John, who was expected to outlive the others,
it was appropriately left to record the fuller account of Jesus’
Judean ministry, and to make mention of persons and events of
whom it was inexpedient to write so fully at an earlier time. And
a minute study of the peculiar characteristics of Mark, Luke, and
John, will show that, both in what they record and in what they
omit, each consistently carries out his own individual plan and
purpose.2
The inner and essential harmony of the gospels is accordingly
enhanced by their diversity. These narratives consti- The harmony
tute a fourfold witness of the Christ of God. As broad- enhanced0'4'^.^
minded philosophers have discerned in the national their diversity,
characteristics and history of the Jews, the Greeks, and the Romans
a providential preparation of the world for the Gospel, so in the
gospels themselves may be seen, in turn, a providential record of
the world’s Redeemer, wonderfully adapted by manifold forms of
statement to impress and convince the various minds of men. We
1 “Bethany,” observes Upham, “was one of the suburbs of Jerusalem. The mir¬
acle there wrought was the immediate occasion of the arrest and trial of Jesus, though
the hatred of the Jews had kindled to the heat of murder before the raising of Laz¬
arus, and even the neighbourhood of the unholy city had become so unsafe that Jesus
stayed on the eastern bank of the Jordan. While there Mary and her sister Martha
sent this message, ‘ Lord, he whom thou lovest is sick.’ And, when he would go to
Bethany, the thoughtful Thomas said, ‘ Let us go and die with him.’ These words
disprove the notion that most of the disciples Avere then away from their Master; his
time was too near for that; but they do prove not only the chivalry of St. Thomas,
but his sagacity. He judged rightly of the peril of the place and time ; for, as soon
as the chief priests knew that Jesus was again so near, and heard of what he did at
Bethany, they took counsel how they might kill him.
“At that time it was their plan to kill Lazarus also. Only St. John records this,
and he does not say how Lazarus escaped. But such was the wealth and rank of the
family of Bethany that its love for Jesus greatly enraged the rulers of the Jews; and,
as Mary foresaw the Lord’s death, she may have seen the danger of Lazarus, and the
family have had the power to guard against it. Perhaps they did so because of some
intimation from their Lord ; all we know is, that the Jews then failed to kill Lazarus.
But such was their purpose. then ; and this purpose would naturally revive in the
midst of the provocations that led them to murder St. Stephen.” — Thoughts on the
Holy Gospels, pp. 170, 171-
2 See these characteristics elaborated in detail by Da Costa and Gregory in then
works named above. Comp, also Westcott’s chapter on The Characteristics of the
Gospels, in his Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, pp. 217-253.
564
PRINCIPLES OF
should not say that Matthew wrote for the Jews only, Mark for the
Romans, and Luke for the Greeks. That would imply that when
these several nations ceased these gospels would have no further
special adaptation. We should rather bear in mind that, so far as
the several gospels have the special adaptations named, they have
a divinely-ordained fitness to make the person and character of
Jesus the more powerfully impressive upon all classes of men. The
types of mind and character represented by those great historic
races are ever appearing, and require perpetually the manifold tes¬
timony of Jesus furnished by the four evangelists. The four are
better than one. We need the living picture of the Prince of the
house of David as given by Matthew, for it reveals him as the per-
fecter of the old economy, the fulfiller of the law and the prophets.
We need the briefer gospel of the mighty Son of God as given by
Mark. Its rapid style and movement affect multitudes more deeply
than a gospel so fully imbued with the Old Testament spirit as that
of Matthew. “ If in the first gospel,” observes Ellieott, “ we recog¬
nise transitions from theocratic glories to meek submissions, in the
second we see our Redeemer in one light only, of majesty and
power. If in St. Matthew’s record we behold now the glorified
and now the suffering Messiah, in St. Mark’s vivid pages we see
only the all-powerful Son of God; the voice we hear is that of the
Lion of the tribe of Judah.”1 Luke’s gospel, on the other hand,
opens before us the broader vision of the Son of man, born, to be
sure, under the law, but born of a woman, “a light for revelation
of the Gentiles,” as well as for the glory of Israel (Luke ii, 32). He
appropriately traces the Redeemer’s lineage away back beyond Da¬
vid, and beyond Abraham, to Adam, the son of God (Luke iii, 38).
This Pauline gospel gives us the living embodiment of the perfect
Man, the Friend and Saviour of helpless humanity. Not only does
it offer the noblest ideal to the mind of the Greek; it must always
have a charm for every Theophilus who has a disposition and
desire to know the immovable certainty (ttjv ao<\>a\uav, Luke i, 4)
of the things of the Gospel. And John’s record notably supple¬
ments the others. It is pre-eminently the gospel for the Church of
God. It is the gospel of the heart of Jesus, and the disciple who
leaned upon the Lord’s bosom, and imbibed so fully the inspira¬
tions of that sacred heart, was the only one of the twelve who could
write this inimitable gospel of the Word, the Light, the Way, the
Truth, the Resurrection, and the Life.
In view of the marvellous harmonies and the all-embracing scope
and purposes of the written gospels of our Lord, how unworthy the
1 Historical Lectures on the Life of our Lord Jesus Christ, pp. 39, 40, Boston, 1863.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
565
scepticism that fastens upon their little differences of statement
(which may he explained by divers reasonable supposi- unreasonabie-
tions), and niao*niffes these differences into contradic- »ess of magni-
' . . . fymg the al-
tions with design to disparage the credibility of the leged Gospel
evangelists. Why puzzle over the fact that Matthew fntocontradic-
and Mark relate that the two thieves who were cruci- tions*
tied with Jesus reviled him, while Luke says that one reviled him,
and was rebuked by the other, who prayed to the Lord, and re¬
ceived the promise of paradise? Is it not supposable that during
the three hours of mortal agony on the cross all these things might
have occurred? Great variety is noticeable in the different ac¬
counts of the appearances of Jesus after the resurrection, but no
man has ever been able to show a real discrepancy or contradiction.1
In the absence of particulars we may not be able to detail the exact
order of events, but when it is shown, on a number of hypotheses,
that it was possible for all the events to take place, the diversity of
statements becomes an undeniable evidence that they all are true.
1 The following order of events following the resurrection is given by Gardiner :
‘ The resurrection itself occurred at or before the earliest dawn of the first day of
the week (Matt, xxviii, 1 ; Mark xvi, 2 ; Luke xxiv, 1 ; John xxi, 1). The women
coming to the sepulchre find the stone rolled away and the body gone. They are
amazed and perplexed. Mary Magdalene alone runs to tell Peter and John (John
xx, 2). The other women remain, enter the tomb, see the angels, are charged by
them to announce the resurrection to the disciples, and depart on their errand.
Meantime Peter and John run very rapidly (verse 4) to the sepulchre. (A glance at
the plan of Jerusalem shows that there were so many different gates by which per¬
sons might pass between the city and the sepulchre that they might easily have failed
to meet the women on their way). They enter the tomb and are astonished at the
orderly arrangement of the grave-clothes, and then return to the city. Mary follows
to the tomb, unable quite to keep pace with them, and so falling behind. She remains
standing at the entrance after they had gone, and, looking in, sees the angels. Then
turning about she sees Jesus himself, and receives his charge for the disciples. This
was our Lord’s first appearance after his resurrection (Mark xvi, 9). To return to
the women who were on their way from the sepulchre to the disciples : They went in
haste, yet more slowly than Peter and John. There were many of them, and being
in a state of great agitation and alarm (Mark xvi, 8) they appear to have become
separated, and to have entered the city by different gates. One party of them, in
their astonishment and fear, say nothing to any one (Matt, xxviii, 8) ; the others run
to the disciples and announce all that they had seen, namely, the vision of the angels
(Mark xvi, 8; Luke xxiv, 9-11). At this time, before any report had come in of the
appearance of our Lord himself, the two disciples set out for Emmaus (Luke xxiv, 18).
Soon after Mary Magdalene comes in announcing that she had actually seen the risen
Lord (Mark xvi, 10, 11 ; John xx, 18). While these things are happening the first-
mentioned party of the women are stopped on the way by the appearance of the Lord
himself, and they also receive a charge to his disciples (Matt, xxviii, 9, 10). Beyond
this point there is no difficulty in the narrative. — Harmony of the Gospels in Greek,
pp. 253, 254.
566
PRINCIPLES OP
CHAPTER XXXIII.
PROGRESS OF DOCTRINE AND ANALOGY OF FAITH.
The interpreter of the Holy Scriptures must never forget that the
The Holy scrip- Bible in its entirety, as now possessed by the Church,
tures a growth. was n0 sudden gift from heaven, but the slow and grad¬
ual accretion of many centuries. It is made up of many parts,
which were produced at many different times. For the first twenty-
five centuries of human history, according to the common chronol¬
ogy, the world was without any part of our Bible.1 Then, in the
course of forty years, the Books of Moses appeared. Possibly the
Book of Job belongs to that early period. Subsequently such histor¬
ical collections as the Books of Joshua and Judges were compiled,
and in due time other histories, with psalms, proverbs, and the ora¬
cles of prophets, were gathered into many separate rolls or volumes,
and at length, after the Babylonian captivity, this whole body of
sacred literature was combined together, and came to be recognized
as a book of divine authority. The different writings of the New
Testament all appeared within * a period of about half a century,
but they also furnish the means of tracing the development of life
and thought in the early apostolic Church. Our present canonical
Sciiptuies, therefore, are to be recognised as the records of a pro¬
gressive divine revelation. We recognise the Spirit of God as the
presiding and controlling wisdom which shaped these lively oracles.
He not only employed holy men in the accomplishment of his pur¬
pose (2 Sam. xxiii, 2; Luke i, 70; Acts i, 16; iii, 18; 2 Peter i, 21),
but also the ministry of angels (Acts vii, 53; Gal. iii, 19; Heb. ii, 2).
A minute divine providence secured the embodiment of the entire
revelation in the written forms in which we now possess it.
I he same God who spoke in the last days in the person of his Son
spoke also in the older revelations (Heb. i, 1), and we may search
his word in confidence that divine order and wisdom will be found
from the beginning to the end.
The Book of Genesis exhibits, as we have seen (pp. 211, 212), a
1 That is, in its present form. No donbt the narratives of the creation, of the fall,
and the flood, were handed down by oral tradition. They may, indeed, long before
Moses time, have existed in written form, and, with the genealogical tables and other
fragmentary portions of patriarchal history, have constituted a sort of sacred litera¬
ture among the descendants of Shem.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
567
series of evolutions, which serve well to illustrate the progress and
order of the divine revelation. First comes the account Genesis aseries
of the miraculous beginning, the cutting, forming, and
making and of Adam’s world (Gen. i, 1-ii, 3). tions.
This we have already explained (pp. 549-552) as the supernatural
preparation of the heavens and land where the first man appeared.
From that geographical and historical beginning we trace a well-
defined series of generations (rrtin). The first series comprises the
“generations of the heavens and the land” (ii, 4). The starting-
point is “ a day of Jehovah God’s making land and heavens,” when
as yet no plant or herb of the new creation had commenced the
processes of growth; no rain had yet fallen, no man to work the
soil had yet appeared (ver. 5). It is the morning of the sixth day
of the creative week. The whole surface of the ground is watered,
and the processes of growth begin (ver. 6). Man is formed (1XJ)
from the dust of the soil, and becomes (W) a living soul by the
breath of Jehovah God (ver. 7). His formation is, therefore, con¬
ceived as a generation or birth out of the heavens and the land by
the breath (n»&w) of God. Then the woman was produced from
the man, another step in the process of these generations (ver. 23;
comp. 1 Cor. xi, 8). Then follows the narrative of the fall, show¬
ing how the first man was from the earth and earthy (1 Cor. xv,
47), and by disobedience lost his original relation to God. The first
generations run to violence and crime, and become more and more
earthly until Seth is born, and with him the revelation takes a new
departure. “The book of the generations of Adam” (v, 1) is not
a record of Adam’s origin, but of his posterity in the line of Seth.
But again the race deteriorates, and the sons of Seth, so much nobler
than the Cainites, and other children of Adam, that they are called
the sons of God (vi, 2), intermarry with the fair but ignoble
daughters of men, and the land is filled with violence. . With Noah,
who was just and upright, and walked with God (vi, 9), anothei
series of generations takes its departure, and the flood destroys all
the rest of men.
After the flood God establishes a covenant with Noah (ix, 9), and
through him foretells the honour that shall come to the From Noah on-
dwellings of Shem (ix, 27). But the tendencies of the ward*
sons of Noah still appear to be earthy, and their generations are
rapidly sketched (x). Shem’s line is traced to Terah (xi, 10-26),
with whose son, Abram, the covenant of grace and the promise of
unspeakable glory in the aftei times are set forth in fuller light.
The history of Abraham, the friend of God, first exhibits in clear
outline the wonderful condescension of Jehovah; he is separated
568
PRINCIPLES OF
from country and kindred, and disciplined in faith. He receives
the covenant of circumcision, and the promise of a seed through
whom all nations shall be blessed. Jehovah speaks to him in
visions and dreams, and in the person of his angel. Additional
revelations come in connexion with Isaac and Ishinael, the genera¬
tions of Jacob branch out into twelve tribes, and the prophetic
blessing of the dying patriarch reveals the outline of their history
in after times (Gen. xlix).
It is impossible to trace the record of these ten generations of
a ro ress of the Book Genesis wit]lout observing the steady prog-
Reveiation in ress of divine revelation. Again and again the history,
Genesis. darkened by the growth of human wickedness, fastens
upon a divinely chosen name, and from it takes a new departure.
With each new series of generations some new promise is given, or
some great purpose of God is brought to light. While the ten¬
dency of the race is to grow worse and worse, there appears at the
same time the unwavering purpose of the Almighty to choose out
and maintain a holy seed. Thus the Book of Genesis is an essential
part of the history of redemption.
The centuries of Egyptian bondage are rapidly passed over, but
The Mosaic leg- the history of the deliverance from Egypt is detailed
enfof1 reveia- nota^e fulness. Jehovah’s triumph over the gods
tion. of Egypt, the establishing of the passover, the journey
to Sinai, the giving of the law, the building of the tabernacle, and
the entire Mosaic ministry and legislation were the beginnings of a
new era. Captious critics, incompetent to grasp the scope and
moral grandeur of the Mosaic system, may cavil at some of its en¬
actments, and forget that Moses had to do with a nation of emanci¬
pated serfs ; but the philosophical historian will ever recognise the
Sinaitic legislation as one of the greatest wonders of the world.
The Decalogue, sublimely uttered from the mount of God, embodies
the substance of all true religion and all sound morality. The
construction of the tabernacle, modelled after a divine plan (Exod.
xxv, 40), and the order of the Levitical service, most truly sym¬
bolize the profoundest conceptions of the curse of sin and the power
of God in redemption.
But, aside from the Decalogue and the symbolism of the Mosaic
cultus, how full and comprehensive the doctrinal and
Doctrine of God. . _ r .
moral teachings of the last four books or the .Penta¬
teuch. The personality, attributes, nd moral perfections of God
are set forth in unspeakably superior form to that of any and all
other religious systems of the ancient or modern world. The self¬
existence and eternity of God, his holiness, justice, and mercy, his
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
563
wisdom and his providence, are revealed in many ways. How aw¬
fully sublime and yet how gracious that revelation to Moses in the
mount, when “Jehovah descended in the cloud, and stood with him
there, and called in the name of Jehovah; and Jehovah passed by
before him, and called: Jehovah, Jehovah, God, merciful and gra¬
cious, long-suffering and abundant in kindness and truth, keeping
kindness for thousands, lifting iniquity, and transgression and sin,
but in punishing will not let go unpunished, visiting the iniquity
of fathers upon children, and upon children of children, upon the
third and upon the fourth ” (generations). Exod. xxxiv, 5-7.
Such a revelation would necessarily beget the holiest reverence,
and at the same time evince that he was worthv of all
i tt i ^ Superior ethi-
love. Hence the commandment, “Thou shalt love cai and civil
Jehovah, thy God, with all thy heart and with all thy code*
soul and with all thy might” (Deut. vi, 5). This doctrine of God
furnished the basis of a superior ethical code. The true Israelite
was required to guard the morals of his neighbour, and love him as
himself. He must not yield to feelings of vengeance, nor hold bit¬
terness in his heart toward any of his brethren (Lev. xix, 17, 18).
He must not oppress the poor and the needy, but leave large glean¬
ings for them in his harvest field (Lev. xix, 10). He must not even
allow his neighbour’s ox of sheep to go astray, but seek to restore
them to him as if they were his own (Deut. xxii, 1-3). Even in
taking the young of birds for any proper purpose, he must, in
kindness and consideration, spare the mother bird. Surely a code
which enacted such humane provisions ought never to have been
charged with barbarous severity.1 Its severest penalties were
grounded in the highest expediency,2 3 and ample securities were
provided against injustice and capricious acts of power. While
the governments of all the great nations of that age were despotic
and largely barbarous, that of the Mosaic legislation was essentially
republican.2
The Pentateuch holds the same relation to the subsequent books
1 See Sewall, Humaneness of the Mosaic Code, Bib. Sacra for 1862, pp. 368-384.
2 Barrows observes : “ The attitude of the Mosaic economy toward the Gentile na¬
tions was indeed severe, but it was the severity of love and goodwill. It had for its
object not their destruction, but a speedier preparation of the way for the advent of
Christ, in whom the promise, ‘ In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, ?
was to find its fulfilment.” — Missionary Spirit of the Psalms and Prophets. Bib. Sacra
for 1860, p. 459.
3 See the excellences of the Mosaic legislation elaborately set forth by Michaelis,
Commentaries on the Laws of Moses (Eng. Trans, by Smith, 4 vols., Lond., 1814) ;
Warburton, The Divine Legation of Moses; Graves, on the Four Last Books of the
Pentateuch (Lond., 1850).
570
PRINCIPLES OF
of the Old Testament that the gospels hold to the rest of the New
The Pentateuch Testament. It contains in some form the substance of
oidda^stament Testament revelation, but it intimates in
revelations. many a passage that other revelations will .be given.
It assumes that a great and glorious future is awaiting the chosen
nation, and indicates the ways by which the glories may be realized.
At the same time it warns against the possibility of lamentable
failure. The entire system of Mosaic laws, moral, civil, and cere¬
monial, was wisely adapted to train the Israelitish nation, and
served as a schoolmaster to prepare them and the world for the re¬
ception of the Gospel of Christ. So far was Moses from regarding
his work as final in the training of Israel, that he announced by
the word of Jehovah that another prophet should arise, to whom
divine revelations would be given, and whom the people should
obey (Deut. xviii, 15-19). The last words of the great lawgiver
are full of warning, of promise, and of prophecy (Deut. xxix-xxxiii).
After the death of Moses Joshua received his divine commission
Revelation to cariT forward the great work of establishing Israel
continued after in the land of promise. Jehovah spoke to him as he
M°ses. did tQ ^joseg i • iii? 7 ’ iv, 1). He also revealed
himself in the person of his angel (Josh, v, 13), and in all the his¬
tory of the conquest and settlement of Canaan, Jehovah spoke as
frequently and familiarly with Joshua as he had done with Moses.
In the dark times of the J udges God left himself not without pro¬
phetic witness. Revelations came to Deborah and Gideon and
Manoah. At length Samuel arose when prophecy was rare in
Israel (1 Sam. iii, 1), and in his day the schools of the prophets ap¬
pear (1 Sam. x, 5; xix, 20). When David became king of all Israel,
the promise and prophecy of the Messiah assumed a fuller form.
The word which came to the king through Nathan the prophet
(2 Sam. vii, 4-17) was the germ of the Messianic psalms, and the
Theology of the entire collection of lyrics, which constitutes the Hebrew
Psalter. psalter, is an invaluable index of the highest religious
thought and feeling of Israel in the times of David and later. The
Messianic hope is enhanced by a variety of conceptions: he is the
anointed King in Zion, declared to be the very Son of Jehovah
(Psa. ii) ; he is a reigning Lord, who is at the same time a priest for¬
ever after the order of Melchizedek (Psa. cx) ; his majesty and grace
are extolled above all the sons of men (Psa. xlv) ; but he is also a
sufferer, crying out as if forsaken of God, while his enemies deride
him and cast lots for his vesture (Psa. xxii) ; he even sinks into the
grave, but exults in hope and confidence that he shall not see corrup¬
tion (Psa. xvi). The doctrine of God is also set forth in the psalter
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
571
in new force and beauty. He is Lord of earth and sea and heavens,
ruling on high and beholding all; the almighty Preserver, the
omnipresent Spirit, infinitely perfect in every moral excellence;
tender, compassionate, long-suffering, marvellous in mercy, and yet
terrible in his judgments, fearful in holiness, ever vindicating the
truth ; he is the absolute and eternal God, the fountain of life and
of light. The guardianship of angels (Psa. xxxiv, 7; xci, 11) and
the hope of a blissful immortality (xvii, 15) were not wanting in
the psalmist’s faith. The doctrines of redeeming grace, of pardon
from sin, of cleansing from guilt; the hidden life of trust; the per¬
sonal approach of the worshipper into closest fellowship with God ;
the joy and gladness of that fellowship, and the probationary dis¬
cipline of the saints, are doctrines which find manifold expression
in the hymn book of the Israelitish people.1
The age of Solomon was the golden age of the proverbial philos¬
ophy of the Hebrews. The Book of Proverbs repre- „ ,
sents the Old I estament doctrines of practical wisdom proverbial Phi-
(npan), and is the great textbook of biblical ethics. It losophy-
brings out in fuller form and in a great variety of precepts the
ethical principles embodied in the Mosaic law. It has to do with
practical life, and so serves, at the right stage in the progress of the
divine revelation, to exalt that human element in which pure re¬
ligion necessarily finds some of its most beautiful manifestations.
“ The Book of Proverbs,” says Stanley, “ is not on a level with the
Prophets or the Psalms. It approaches human things and things
divine from quite another side. It has even something of a worldly,
prudential look, unlike the rest of the Bible. But this is the very
reason why its recognition as a sacred book is so useful. It is the
philosophy of practical life. It is the sign to us that the Bible does
not despise common sense and discretion. It impresses upon us, in
the most forcible manner, the value of intelligence and prudence,
and of a good education. The whole strength of the Hebrew lan¬
guage, and of the sacred authority of the book, is thrown upon
these homely truths. It deals, too, in that refined, discriminating,
1 “This book/’ says Calvin, “not unreasonably, am I wont to style an anatomy of
all parts of the soul, for no one will discover in himself a single feeling whereof the
image is not reflected in this mirror. All griefs, sorrows, fears, doubts, hopes, cares,
and anxieties — in short, all the tumultuous agitations wherewith the minds of men
are wont to be tossed — the Holy Ghost hath here represented to the life. The rest of
Scripture contains the commands which God gave to his servants to be delivered unto
us. But here the prophets themselves, holding converse with God, inasmuch as they
lay bare all their inmost feelings, invite or impel every one of us to self-examination,
that of all the infirmities to which we are liable, and all the sins of which we are so
full, none may remain hidden.”— Commentary on the Psalms, Preface.
572
PRINCIPLES OF
careful view of the finer shades of human character, so often
overlooked by theologians, but so necessary to any true estimate of
human life.” 1
In the great prophets of the Old Testament the depth and spir-
_ . itualitv of the Mosaic religion attained their highest
elation reached expression. W^e have already outlined the progressive
“nte character of the Messianic prophecies, and seen the or-
great prophets. ganic and vital relations of prophecy to the history of
the Israelitish people (p. 408). The Messianic hope, first uttered in
the garden of Eden (Gen. iii, 15), was a fountain-head from which
a gradually increasing stream went forth, receiving constant acces¬
sions as prophet after prophet arose commissioned to utter some
clearer oracle. In a general way, at least, each new prophet added
to the work of his predecessors.2 The prophecy of Jonah, one
of the earliest written, emphasizes Jehovah’s compassion upon a
great heathen city which repents at his word. It is conspicuously
an oracle of hope to the Gentiles. Joel, the ancient apocalyptist,
sees in the desolating judgments on the land signs of the com¬
ing of Jehovah, and calls upon the people to rend their hearts
rather than their garments in evidence of contrite humiliation be¬
fore God (Joel ii, 12). His visions stretch away to the latter times
when the Spirit of Jehovah shall be poured out upon all flesh, and
whosoever shall call upon the name of Jehovah shall be saved
(ii, 28, 32). Hosea bewails the idolatry of Israel and Judah, but
sees great hope for them if they will but offer their lips as sacrifi¬
cial offerings of prayer and praise (IIos. xiv, 2). The formal cere¬
monial worship of the nation was fast losing all its deep sacredness,
and ceasing to be a means of holy, heartfelt devotion. With such
outward unspiritual worship Jehovah could not be pleased, and he
says in Amos (v, 21, 22) :
1 History of the Jewish Church, second series, p. 269. New York, 1869.
2 R. Payne Smith observes : “ Men never do understand anything unless already in their
minds they have some kindred ideas, something that leads up to the new thought which
they are required to master. Our knowledge grows, but it is by the gradual accumu¬
lation of thought upon thought, and by following out ideas already gained to their
legitimate conclusions. God followed this rule even in the supernatural knowledge
. bestowed upon the prophets. It was a growing light, a gradual dawning preparatory
to the sunrise, and no flash of lightning, illuminating everything for one moment with
ghastly splendour, to be succeeded immediately by a deeper and more oppressive
gloom. . . . Carefully, and with prayer, the prophets studied the teaching of their
predecessors, and by the use of the light already given were made fit for more light,
and to be the spokesmen of Jehovah in teaching ever more clearly to the Church those
truths which have regenerated mankind.” — Bampton Lectures. Prophecy a Prepara¬
tion for Christ, pp. 304, 305. Boston, 1870.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
573
I have hated, I have despised your feasts,
And I will not breathe in your assemblies;
lor if ye ofler me burnt- offerings and your meat-offerings
I will not be delighted,
And a peace-offering of your fatlings I will not regard.
Put away from me the noise of thy songs;
And the music of thy harps I will not hear.
And let judgment be rolled along as the waters,
And righteousness as a perennial stream.
It would thus appear that as idolatry increased, and the ceremo¬
nial worship became cold,, heartless, and idolatrous, the prophets,
as inspired watchmen and teachers, turned the thoughts of the peo¬
ple to those deeper spiritual truths of which the ceremonial cultus
furnished only the outer symbols. They yearned for a purer wor¬
ship, and a more real and vital approach to God. They began to
realize, what the New Testament so fully reveals, that the law was
only a shadow, not the very likeness, of the good things to come,
and that the ritual sacrifices could never perfect the worshippers
who depended on them alone (Heb. x, 1). Thus Micah (vi, 6-8):
With whnt shall I come before Jehovah —
Bend myself to the God of height ?
Shall I come before him with burnt-offerings?
With calves, sons of a year ?
Will Jehovah be pleased with thousands of rams,
With myriads of streams of oil ?
Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression,
Fruit of my body for the sin of my soul ?
He has showed thee, O man, what io good;
And what is Jehovah seeking from thee,
But to execute judgment and the love of mercy,
Aud humbly to walk with thy God?
In the Book of Isaiah the prophetic word reaches a lofty climax.
This evangelist among the prophets seems to rise at written proph-
will above the limitations of time, and to see the past, cSmax^jjT^is1
the present, and the future converge in great historic raei.
epochs vital to the interests of the kingdom of God. Although the
first thirty-nine chapters deal mainly with the matters of contem¬
porary interest and note, they are filled with glowing visions of
Messianic triumph. The first part of the second chapter, appa¬
rently borrowed from Micah, portrays the universality and glory of
that spiritual dominion which is to supplant Judaism, and go forth
from Jerusalem to establish peace among all nations. The Messi¬
anic promise again and again finds varied expression (chap, vii, 14;
574
PRINCIPLES OP
ix, 1-7; xi, 1-10). Where, in all the pictures of a coming golden
age, can be found a more beautiful outline than Isa. xxxv ? But
in the last twenty-seven chapters Isaiah’s prophecies exhibit their
highest spirituality. lie depicts things in their divine relations,
and contemplates the redemption of Israel as from the position of
the high and exalted One who dwells in eternity (lvii, 15). His
thoughts and ways are loftier than those of men, even as the heav¬
ens are higher than the earth (lv, 8, 9). Looking away from the
darkening present, and exulting in glowing visions of Messiah’s
triumph, the prophet often speaks in the name and person of Mes¬
siah and his elect, and apprehends the glories of his reign as the
creation of a new heavens and a new earth.
The prophecies of Daniel % exhibit the increasing light of divine
The prophecies revelation which came when Israel, by exile, was brought
of Daniel. in contact with the great heathen world-powers. Dan¬
iel speaks as one who looks out from the midst of the operations of
great empires, and sees a throne higher than that of the kings
of Babylon or of Persia, and forces more numerous and mighty
than all the armies of the world (Dan. vii, 9, 10). “ In him,” says
R. Payne Smith, “prophecy has a new development; it breaks away
from the bonds of Jewish thought, and sets before us the grand
onward march of the world’s history, and the Christian Church as
the centre and end of all history.” 1 His visions make prominent a
determined end or consummation, wrhen a desolating abomination
shall destroy the sanctuary (ix, 26, 27; comp. Matt, xxiv, 15; Mark
xiii, 14; Luke xxi, 20):
And many, sleeping in the dust of the ground, shall awake,
These to life eternal,
And those to shame and eternal contempt.
And the wise ones shall shine as the brightness of the firmament,
And those who make many righteous
As the stars for ever and ever (Dan. xii, 2, 3).
In some respects Ezekiel surpasses Daniel in the depth and ful-
Prophecies of ness °f his revelations. His vision of the cherubim and
Ezekiel. the theophany is set forth in the first chapter of his
prophecy with a wealth of suggestive symbols not to be found else¬
where in the Old Testament, and the detailed description of the
new temple and land of Israel (chapters xl-xlviii) is an anticipation
of John’s vision of the new heavens and the new earth (Rev. xxi).
Ezekiel’s city of Jehovah-Shammah (xlviii, 35) is no other than the
New Jerusalem of John. The doctrine of the resurrection, which
1 Prophecy a Preparation for Christ, p. 238.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
575
in Isaiah (xxvi, 19) is suggested by a striking apostrophe, is ex¬
pressed in formal statement by Daniel (xii, 2), and assumed as a
common belief in the imagery of Ezekiel (xxxvii, 1-14).
After the Babylonian exile we note that Ilaggai sees in the sec¬
ond temple a glory greater than that of the former Post-exile
(Hag. ii, 9). Zechariah combines in his prophetic book Pr°phets.
the varied symbolism of Daniel and Ezekiel with the lofty spirit¬
uality of Isaiah. And the “burden of Jehovah’s word to Israel by
the hand of Malachi” (Mai. i, 1), the last of the Old Testament
prophets, is a series of rebukes to a false and heartless formalism,
and an earnest call to repentance and personal self-consecration.1
Passing over the four hundred years of silence between Malachi
and the advent of Jesus Christ, we find the two Testa- prophetic link
ments linked by a noticeable prophetic bond. The Old
Testament closes with a promise that Elijah the prophet Testaments,
shall come before the great day of Jehovah, and the gospel history
of the New Testament opens with the ministry of this Elijah who
was to come (Luke i, 17; Matt, xi, 14; xvii, 10-13). But John the
Baptist, though filled with the spirit and power of Elijah, was
merely a forerunner, a herald, a voice (John i, 23), provided in the
divine order to prepare the way of the Lord. His ministry was
professedly introductory to the Gospel Age, and his constant testi¬
mony was that one mightier than himself was about to come, who
would baptize with the Holy Ghost and fire (Matt, iii, 11).
The ministry and words of the Lord Jesus, as recorded in the
gospels, constitute the substance of all Christian doc- Christ,g teach_
trines. As the five books of Moses really embody the ings the sub¬
germs of all subsequent revelation, so in a clearer form t^flna^onn!
the teachings of Jesus embrace every great truth of the of Christian
Christian faith. But our Lord himself was explicit in
declaring that his own teaching must needs be supplemented by the
fuller revelations of the Spirit. He taught by parable, by precept,
and by example, but he found the hearts of the people and of his
own disciples too heavy to apprehend the grand scope and spirit¬
uality of his Gospel, and declared that it was expedient for him to
1 R. Payne Smith observes that prophecy u was not withdrawn abruptly. It still lin¬
gered in those beautiful psalms of degrees sung by the exiles, and in those prophets
who helped in rearing the second house. But at the dispersion it had done its work.
The Jews wondered that no prophet more arose. We can see why the gift was with¬
drawn. The time for teaching had ceased. The Jews were children no longer, but
grown men ; and, like grown men, they must leave home, and go out into all lands to
carry to them the truths which the prophets had taught them.” Prophecy a Prepa¬
ration for Christ, p. 335.
576
PRINCIPLES OP
go away in order that the Spirit of truth might come to guide into
all the truth, and to teach all things (John xiv, 25, 26; xvi, 7-15). 1
The Acts of the Apostles shows that divine revelations were
Revelations continued after the ascension of the Lord. On the day
continued after f Pentecost the waiting; disciples received the gift of
Jesus. the Holy Spirit, and began to realize as never before
the “powers of the coming age” (Heb. vi, 5). Thenceforth they
went forth with a heavenly authority to proclaim the newly enun¬
ciated truth of God. The angel of the Lord opened the prison
doors where the apostles were shut up, and commanded them to
continue speaking the words of eternal life (Acts v, 19, 20; comp,
xii, 7 ; xvi, 26). The martyr Stephen saw the heavens opened, and
the Son of man standing on the right hand of God (vii, 56). The
same Lord Jesus appeared to Saul on his way to Damascus (ix, 17),
and also to Ananias, in a vision (ix, 10). Peter was guided into
opening the kingdom of God to the Gentiles by a symbolic vision
(x, 9-16), and was aided by the ministry of an angel of God (x, 3-7).
Special revelations of the Spirit directed Philip and Paul in their
journeys (viii, 29, 39; xvi, 7). The great apostle of the Gentiles
was repeatedly directed by visions and revelations of God (Acts
xvi, 9; xxii, 17-21; comp. 2 Cor. xii, 1-4). Thus it is evident from
the Acts of the Apostles that what Jesus began to do and teach
(Acts i, 1) was carried into completion by those whom he chose to
be the authoritative expounders of his word.
The Book of the Acts of the Apostles is a connecting link between
the gospels and the epistles. It is essentially a historical introduc¬
tion to the latter, and without the information it affords, both the
The Epistles era- gospels and the epistles would be involved in much
rated teachings °bscurity. The epistles preserve for the Church the
of the apostles, teachings of the apostles, and present them in a form
admirably adapted to meet the wants of all classes of readers.2
1 This subject is ably presented in Bernard’s Bampton Lectures on the Progress of
Doctrine in the New Testament. In Lecture iii he lays down and elaborates the fol¬
lowing propositions : “ First, The teaching of the Lord in the gospels includes the
substance of all Christian doctrine, but does not bear the character of finality. Sec¬
ondly, The teaching of the Lord in the gospels is a visibly progressive course, but on
reaching its highest point announces its own incompleteness, and opens another stage
of instruction.” — P. 79.
2 “The prophets,” writes Bernard, “delivered oracles to the people, but the apostles
wrote letters to the brethren, letters characterized by all that fulness of unreserved ex¬
planation, and that play of various feeling, which are proper to that form of inter¬
course. It is in its nature a more familiar communication, as between those who are,
or should be, equals. That character may less obviously force upon us the sense, that
the light which is thrown upon all subjects is that of a divine inspiration ; but this is
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
577
Great principles, enunciated by Jesus, are elaborated and applied to
practical life and experience by the apostolic epistles. The Epistles
of Paul, including that to the Hebrews, traverse a wide field of
Christian doctrine and experience. Their range may be indicated
by the following classification: (1) Dogmatical, discussing especial¬
ly the doctrines of sin and redemption (Romans and Galatians) ;
(2) Christological (Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Hebrews);
(3) Ecclesiastical, devoted to the order, practice, and life of the
Church (Corinthians) ; (4) Pastoral (Timothy, Titus, Philemon) ;
and (5) Eschatological (Thessalonians). Of course, none of these
epistles is devoted exclusively to one particular subject, but each
contains more or less of doctrine, reproof, exhortation, and counsels
for practical life. The catholic epistles are concerned more exclu¬
sively with the practical affairs of the Christian life. Bernard em¬
phasizes the fact that they were written by Peter and John, the
two chief apostles, and James and Jude, the brethren of the Lord.
“We take knowledge of them that they have been with Jesus, and
own the highest authority which association with him can give.”
But he observes that the united epistles of these representatives of
our Lord form only a kind of supplement to the writings of Paul.
“ Had we been permitted,” he adds, “to choose our instructors from
among ‘the glorious company,’ three of these names at least would
have been uttered by every tongue; and besides our desire to be
taught by their lips, we should, as disciples of St. Paul, have felt a
natural anxiety to know whether ‘James, Cephas, and John, who
seemed to be pillars, added nothing to’ (Gal. ii, 6, 9), and took
nothing from, the substance of the doctrine which we had received
through him. ... We have words from these very apostles, ex¬
pressing the mind of their later life, words in which we recognise
the mellow tone of age, the settled manner of an old experience,
and the long habit of Christian thought.” 1
The Apocalypse of John is, as we have seen (pp. 466-493), a
magnificent expansion of the eschatological prophecy The Apocalypse
of our Lord in Matt. xxiv. It is professedly a further siononheNew
revelation from the Lord Jesus himself (Rev. i, 1). As Test, canon.
Paul’s Thessalonian Epistles, containing his prophecies of the pa-
rousia and the end of the age, were earlier in date than his other
only the natural effect of the greater fulness of that light ; for so the moonbeams fix
the eye upon themselves, as they bur&t through the rifts of rolling clouds, catching
the edges of objects and falling on patches of landscape ; while, under the settled
brightness of the universal and genial day, it is not so much the light that we think
of, as the varied scene which it shows.” — Progress of Doctrine, p. 156.
1 Progress of Doctrine, pp. 161, 165.
37
578
PRINCIPLES OF
writings, so John’s book of eschatology antedates his gospel. But
there is a fitness in having the Book of Revelation close the New
Testament canon, even as the Thessalonian Epistles stand in canon¬
ical order at the close of Paul’s letters to seven different churches.1
For the Apocalypse reveals the marvellous things of the parousia,
and the consummation of that age, when both earth and heavens
were shaken, and the former things passed away in order to give
place to the Messianic kingdom, which cannot be shaken (Heb.
xii, 26-28). No vision could more appropriately close the Christ¬
ian Canon than the apocalyptic symbol of the heavenly and eternal
kingdom.
This rapid outline of the development and progress of doctrine,
Attention to traceable in the several books of the Old and New
t5^aSheip°to Testament Scriptures, will serve to show that God did
the interpreter, not communicate his revelations all at once. The suc¬
cessive portions which he revealed from time to time were adapted
to the varying conditions and needs of his people. Sometimes the
word was left defective because of the hardness of the people’s
hearts (Mark x, 5). Sometimes the progress was slow, and inter¬
rupted by long periods of spiritual decline; then again it broke
forth in new developments of national life. A careful attention to
this progressive character of the divine revelation is necessary to a
thorough interpretation and efficient use of the Holy Scriptures.
It helps to set aside the charges of doctrinal and ethical discrep¬
ancies which have been alleged. The notion that the Pauline doc¬
trine of justification is something essentially different from the
teachings of Jesus, will have no force when it is seen that the whole
Epistle to the Romans is virtually a systematic elaboration of our
Lord’s words to Nicodemus : “ God so loved the world that he gave
his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not
perish, but have eternal life” (John iii, 16). The allegation that
the New Testament contradicts the Old is seen to be an error when
we discover that the older revelations were necessarily imperfect,
and manifestly not designed to set forth all the truth of God.
Things which from one standpoint seem to be contradictory, from
another are seen to be only separated portions of one grand har-
mony. The lex talionis and the violent procedures of the blood-
avenger were grounded in the righteous demands of retributive
justice, and were archaic forms of executing law. A higher civil¬
ization, based on clearer revelations, adopts other methods of exe¬
cuting penalty, but recognises the same essential principles of right.
1 Comp. Bernard, Progress of Doctrine, p. 169.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
579
Tiie Analogy of Faith.
The foregoing observations prepare the way to a proper appre¬
hension of the “Analogy of Faith” as an aid in ex- progress of doe-
pounding the Scriptures. This .expression, appropri- the^ru^Anai8
ated from Rom. xii, 6, but used in a different sense ogy of Faith,
from that which the apostle intended,1 denotes that general har¬
mony of fundamental doctrine which pervades the entire Scriptures.
It assumes that the Bible is a self-interpreting book, and what is
obscure in one passage may be illuminated by another. No single
statement or obscure passage of one book can be allowed to set
aside a doctrine which is clearly established by many passages.
The obscure texts must be interpreted in the light of those which
are plain and positive. “The faith,” says Fairbairn, “according to
which the sense of particular passages is determined, must be that
which rests upon the broad import of some of the most explicit
announcements of Scripture, about the meaning of which there can
be, with unbiassed minds, no reasonable doubt. And in so far as
we must decide between one passage and another, those passages
should always be allowed greatest weight in fixing the general
principles of the faith in which the subjects belonging to it are not
incidentally noticed 'merely, but formally treated and discussed ;
for, in such cases, we can have no doubt that the point on which
we seek for an authoritative deliverance was distinctly in the eye
of the writer.”2
1 In Rom. xii, 6, the apostle is speaking of the gifts, xa?'iG^aTai the spiritual quali¬
fications and aptitudes for Christian activity and usefulness in the Church, “gifts
differing according to the grace given” to each individual. Of these varying gifts he
specifies several examples, one of which is that of prophesying. Let the one thus
gifted, he says, exercise his gift, Kara ttjv dvakoyiav rfjQ tcLgtiuc,, according to the pro¬
portion of the faith, that is, the faith which he individually possesses. This propor¬
tion or analogy ( uvaXoyia ) of one’s individual faith is not an external rule or doctrinal
standard, the regula fidei (as Philippi, Hodge, and others hold), but the measure of
faith with which each is endowed. “ They are not to depart from the proportional
measure which their faith has, neither wishing to exceed it, nor falling short of it, but
are to guide themselves by it, and are therefore so to announce and interpret the received
revelation, as the peculiar position in respect of faith bestowed on them, according
to the strength, fervour, clearness, and other qualities of that faith, suggests — so that
the character and mode of their speaking is conformed to the rules and limits, which
are implied in the proportion of their individual degree of faith. In the contrary case
they fall, in respect of contents and of form, into a mode of prophetic utterance, either
excessive and overstrained, or, on the other hand, insufficient and defective, not corre¬
sponding to the level of their faith. The same revelation may, in fact — according to
the difference in the proportion of faith with which it, objectively given, subjectively
connects itself — be very differently expressed and delivered.” — Meyer, in loco.
2 Hermeneutical Manual, p. 128.
680
PRINCIPLES OF
Positive.
General.
We may distinguish two degrees of the analogy of faith. The
„ , first and highest is positive, in which the doctrine or
Two degrees . \ _ * . . . n n
of the analogy revelation is so plainly and positively stated, and sup-
of faith. ported by so many distinct passages, that there can be
no doubt of its meaning and value.. Thus the Scriptures teach posi¬
tively that all men are sinners; that God has provided redemption
for all; that God is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, holy,
righteous, and merciful; that he requires in those who seek his
grace, repentance, faith, humility, love, and obedience;
that he purposes to save and glorify those who love and
serve him, and to punish those who disobey and hate him. These
and many similar great truths are so positively and repeatedly set
forth in the Holy Scriptures that no one who reads with care can
fail to apprehend them.
The next degree is appropriately called the general analogy of
faith. It rests not like the first upon explicit declara¬
tions, but upon the obvious scope and import of the
Scripture teachings taken as a whole. Thus, for example, the sub¬
ject of human slavery is referred to in various ways, both in the
Old Testament and in the New. Some passages have been con¬
strued as sanctioning the practice, others as opposing and condemn¬
ing it. A valid conclusion as to the general import of Scripture on
this subject can be reached only by a broad and thorough inves¬
tigation of all that bears upon it in the revelation of God. The
Mosaic legislation, which expressly permits the buying of slaves
from foreigners (Lev. xxv, 44, 46), makes the stealing and selling
of a Hebrew a capital crime (Exod. xxi, 1G; Deut. xxiv, 7). A
leading feature of the Mosaic system was to distinguish sharply
between the Israelite and the foreigner, always to the prejudice of
the latter. This fact must be kept in mind in discussing any sub¬
ject of Mosaic ethics. No Hebrew could, without his own consent,
be retained in slavery more than six years (Exod. xxi, 2), and the
year of jubilee might terminate the bondage sooner (Lev. xxv,
40, 54). Paul counsels the Christian slaves to be obedient to their
masters (Eph. vi, 5; Col. iii, 22; 1 Tim. vi, 1, 2), but he sends
back the fugitive, Onesimus, to his master, “ no longer a slave, but
more than a slave, a brother beloved” (Philem. 16). He proclaims,
moreover, that under the Gospel “ there is neither Jew nor Greek,
there is neither bond nor free, there is no male and female ” (Gal.
iii, 28). The putting on of Christ by being baptized into Christ (ver.
27) causes all distinctions of nation (comp. Rom. x, 12), condition,
and even of sex, to be wholly lost sight of and forgotten. When to
these and other similar teachings we add the consideration that the
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
581
Old Testament commandment, “Thou slialt love thy neighbour as
thyself,” dropped somewhat incidentally in the Mosaic legislation
(Lev. xix, 18), is called by James “ the royal law ” (James ii, 8), and
is announced by the Lord as a fundamental pillar of the divine
revelation (Matt, xxii, 39; Mark xii, 31 ; Luke x, 27), we can
scarcely doubt that the holding of any fellow being in bondage
against his will is essentially contrary to the highest ethics. The
general analogy of faith is thus made apparent by a broad and
careful collation of all that the Scripture says on any given sub¬
ject.1
It is evident that no doctrine which rests upon a single passage
of Scripture can belong to fundamental doctrines rec-
° „ „ . , „ . , Limitations and
ogmsed in the analogy of faith. But it must not be uses of the anai-
inferred from this that no specific statement of Scrip- ogy of faith‘
ture is authoritative unless it has support in other passages. Nor
can we set aside any legitimate inference from a statement of
Scripture on the ground that such inference is unsupported by other
parallel statements. Unless it be clearly contradicted or excluded
by the analogy of faith, or by some other equally explicit state¬
ment, one positive declaration of God’s word is sufficient to estab¬
lish either a fact or a doctrine. Hence the analogy of faith as a
principle of interpretation is necessarily limited in its application.
It is useful in bringing out the relative importance and prominence
of different doctrines, and guarding against a one-sided exposition
of the sacred oracles. It exhibits the inner unity and harmony of
the entire divine revelation. It magnifies the importance of con¬
sistency in interpretation. But it cannot govern the interpreter in
the exposition of those parts of the Scriptures which are without
real parallel, and which stand unopposed by other parts. For it
may justly be inferred from the progress of doctrine in the Bible
that here and there single revelations of divine truth may have
been given in passages where the context furnished no occasion for
further development or elaboration.
1 Celerier (Manuel d’Hermeneutique, pp. 194-196) specifies two inferior degrees of
analogy which he defines as deduced and imposed; but he very properly observes that
they are unworthy of the name of analogy of faith ; for the one rests upon the logi¬
cal process by which it is attempted to prove a doctrine, the other upon an assumed
authority supposed to inhere in the consensus of the creeds of Christendom. The con¬
sensus or analogy of Christian creeds is not without its value, but to use it as a method
of interpreting Scripture is to substitute authority in the place of rational principles
and rules of hermeneutics. What is believed everywhere, always, and by all (Quod
ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est), is, doubtless, worthy of serious
consideration, but cannot be admitted as a means of unfolding the sense of any par¬
ticular portions of the Bible.
582
PRINCIPLES OF
CHAPTER XXXIV.
#
DOCTRINAL AND PRACTICAL USE OF SCRIPTURE.
Paul, the apostle, declares that all Scripture which is divinely in-
Paui’s state- spired is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for
use? Of fScripe correcti01b f°r instruction in righteousness (2 Tim. iii,
toe.0 " 16). These various uses of the holy records may be
distinguished as doctrinal and practical. T-he Christian teacher
appeals to them as authoritative utterances of divine truth, and un¬
folds their lessons as theoretical and doctrinal statements of what
their divine author would have men believe. Our fifth Article of
Religion (the sixth of the Church of England) says: “The Holy
Scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation ; so that what¬
soever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be
required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith,
or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.” The inspired
word, moreover, serves a most important practical purpose by fur¬
nishing conviction and reproof ( eXeyxov> or eXeyiiov) for the sinful,
correction (enavopdcjoiv) for the fallen and erring, and instruction
or disciplinary training (naideiav) for all who would become sancti¬
fied by the truth (comp. John xvii, 17) and perfected in the ways
of righteousness.
The Roman Church, as is well known, denies the right of private
Roman doc- judgment in the interpretation of the Scriptures, and
trine of inter- condemns the exercise of that right as the source of all
Church author- heresy and schism. The third article of the creed of
lty* Pope Pius IV., which is one of the most authoritative
expressions of Roman faith, reads as follows: “I admit the Holy
Scriptures, according to that sense which our holy mother Church
has held and does hold, to which it belongs to judge of the true
sense and interpretation of the Scriptures ; neither will I ever take
and interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous con¬
sent of the fathers.” 1 The Romanist, therefore, finds in the Church
and tradition an authority superior to the inspired Scripture. But
when we find that the fathers notoriously disagree in the exposition
of important passages, thnt popes have contradicted one another,
and have condemned and annulled the acts of their predecessors,
1 Comp. Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, vol. i, pp. 96-99 ; vol. ii, p. 207. New
York, 1877.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
583
and that even great councils, like those of Nice (325), Laodicea
(360), Constantinople (754), and Trent (1545) have enacted decrees
utterly inconsistent with each other,1 we may safely reject the pre¬
tensions of the Romanists, and pronounce them absurd and prepos¬
terous.
The Protestant, on the other hand, maintains the right of exer¬
cising his own reason and judgment in the study of the The Protestant
Scriptures. But he humbly acknowledges the fallibility princiPle of
of all men, not excepting any of the popes of Rome, own reason.
He observes that there are portions of the Bible which are diffi¬
cult to explain; he also observes that no Roman pontiff, whatever
his claim of infallibility, has ever made them clear. He is con¬
vinced, furthermore, that there are many passages of holy writ on
which good and wise men may agree to differ, and some of which no
one may be able to interpret. By far the greater portion of the Old
and New Testaments is so clear in general import that there is no
room for controversy, and those parts which are obscure contain no
fundamental truth or doctrine which is not elsewhere set forth in
clearer form. Protestants, accordingly, hold it to be not only a
right but a duty of all Christians to search the Scriptures, that they
may know for themselves the will and commandments of God.3
But while the Holy Scriptures contain all essential revelation of
divine truth, “so that whatsoever is not read therein, statement an(1
nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any defence of doc.
man that it should be believed as an article of faith,” tocorrS^eS
it is of fundamental importance that all formal state- meneutics.
ments of biblical doctrine, and the exposition, elaboration, or de¬
fence of the same, be made in accordance with correct hermeneutical
principles. The systematic expounder of Scripture doctrine is ex-
pected to set forth, in clear outline and well-defined terms, such
teachings as have certain warrant in the word of God. He must not
import into the text of Scripture the ideas of later times, or build
upon any words or passages a dogma which they do not legitimately
teach. The apologetic and dogmatic methods of interpretation
which proceed from the standpoint of a formulated creed, and ap¬
peal to all words and sentiments scattered here and there in the
1 See the proof of these statements in Elliott, Delineation of Roman Catholicism,
vol. i, pp. 144-147. New York, 1841.
2 “ If a position is demonstrably scriptural,” says Dorner, “ according to the evan.
gelical doctrine of the Church, it has an essentially ecclesiastical character ; it has
citizenship and a claim to regard even though it do not enjoy a formal validity ; and
a position which is demonstrably opposed to Scripture has similarly no claim to ac¬
ceptance though it be ecclesiastical.” — System of Christian Doctrine, vol. i, p. 176.
Edinb., 1880.
584
PRINCIPLES OF
Scriptures, which may by any possibility lend support to a foregone
conclusion, have been condemned already (see above, pp. 171, 172).
By such methods many false notions have been urged upon men as
matters of faith. But no man has a right to foist into his exposi¬
tions of Scripture his own dogmatic conceptions, or those of others,
and then insist that these are an essential part of divine revelation.
Only that which is clearly read therein, or legitimately proved
thereby, can be properly held as scriptural doctrine.1
We should, however, clearly discriminate between biblical theol-
Bibiicai and ogy. and the historical and systematic development of
historical the- Christian doctrine. Many fundamental truths are set
ology to he dis- ' J
tinguished. forth in fragmentary forms, or by implication, m the
Scriptures; but in the subsequent life and thought of the Church,
they have been brought out by thorough elaboration, and the for¬
mulated statements of individuals and ecclesiastical councils.2 All
the great creeds and confessions of Christendom assume to be in
harmony with the written word of God, and manifestly have great
historical value ; but they contain not a few statements of doctrine
which a legitimate interpretation of the Scripture proof-texts ap¬
pealed to does not authorize. A fundamental principle of Protes¬
tantism is that the Scriptures only are the true sources of doctrine.
A creed has no authority further than it clearly rests upon what
God has spoken by his inspired prophets and apostles. All true
Christian doctrine is contained in substance in the canonical Scrip¬
tures.3 But the elaborate study and exposition of subsequent ages
luIn the domain of Christian doctrine,” says Yan Oosterzee, “the Scripture is
rightly made use of, when it is duly tested, interpreted according to precise rules, em¬
ployed in explaining, purifying, and developing Church confessions, and is consulted
as a guide in individual Christian philosophic investigation of truth.” — Christian Dog¬
matics, vol. i, pp. 220, 221. New York, 1874.
2 Thus Martensen : “ As the archetypal work of the Spirit of Inspiration, the Scrip¬
tures include within themselves a world of germs for a continuous development.
While every dogmatic system grows old, the Bible remains eternally young, because it
docs not give us a systematic presentation of. truth, but truth in its fulness, involving
the possibility of a variety of systems.” — Christian Dogmatics, p. 52. Edinb., 1866.
3 “The history of doctrines,” says Hagenbach, “presupposes biblical theology as its
basis; just as the general history of the Church presupposes the life of Jesus and the
apostolic age.” — Text-Book of the History of Doctrines, p. 16. Eng. trans., revised
by H. B. Smith, New York, 1861. He observes further (p. 44): “With the incarna¬
tion of the Redeemer, and the introduction of Christianity into the world, the materi¬
als of the history of doctrines are already fully given in the germ. The object of all
further doctrinal statements and definitions is, in the positive point of view, to unfold
this germ; in the negative, to guard it against all foreign additions and influences.”
Similarly Schaff : “ In the Protestant system, the authority of symbols, as of all human
compositions, is relative and limited. It is not co-ordinate with, but always subordinate
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
585
may be presumed to have put some things in clearer light, and the
judgments expressed by venerable councils are entitled to great
respect and deference.
Most of the great controversies on Christian doctrine have grown
out of attempts to define what is left in the Scriptures Human tend-
u’ndefined. The mysteries of the nature of God the ency t0 *>e wise
person and work of Jesus Christ, sacrificial atone- written,
ment in its relations to divine justice, man’s depraved nature
and the relative possibilities of the human soul with and without
the light of the Gospel, the method of regeneration, and the de¬
grees of possible Christian attainment, the resurrection of the
dead, and the mode of immortality and eternal judgment — these
and kindred subjects are of a nature to invite speculation and vain
theorizing, and it was most natural that everything in the Scripture
bearing on such points should have been pressed into service. On
such mysterious themes it is quite easy for men to become “ wise
above what is written,” and in the historical development of the
blended life, thought, and activities of the Church, some things
came to be generally accepted as essential Christian doctrine which
in fact are without sufficient warrant in the Scriptures.
Inasmuch, then, as the Scriptures are the sole source of revealed
doctrine, and were given for the purpose of making True and false
known to men the saving truth of God, it is of the ut- me^h?ds *° as-
most importance that we study, by sound hermeneutical ture doctrines,
methods, to ascertain from them the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth. We may best illustrate our meaning by taking several
leading doctrines of the Christian faith, and indicating the unsound
and untenable methods by which their advocates have sometimes
defended them.
Nothing is more fundamental in any system of religion than the
doctrine of God, and the catholic faith of the early
. . , . , . ^ The catholic doe-
Chnstian Church, as formulated m the Athanasian trine of God.
Creed, is this :
That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither con¬
founding the Persons, nor dividing the substance. For there is one Person
of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Spirit. But
the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one:
the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the
to, the Bible, as the only infallible rule of the Christian faith and practice. The
value of creeds depends upon the measure of their agreement with the Scriptures. In
the best Case a human creed is only an approximate and relatively correct exposition
of revealed truth, and may be improved by the progressive knowledge of the Church,
while the Bible remains perfect and infallible.” — The Creeds of Christendom, vol. i, p. 7
586
PRINCIPLES OF
Son, and such is the Holy Spirit: The Father uncreated, the Son uncre¬
ated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated; the Father incomprehensible (■ immen -
sus ), the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible; the
Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet there
are not three Eternals, but one Eternal; as also there are not three uncre¬
ated, nor three incomprehensibles, but One uncreated, and One incompre¬
hensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the
Holy Spirit Almighty; and yet there are not three Almighties, but one
Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is
God ; and yet there are not three Gods, but one God.
Here is a very succinct and explicit statement of doctrine, and
its definitions, so far as quoted above, have obtained all but uni¬
versal acceptance among evangelical believers. Though commonly
ascribed to Athanasius, this symbol of faith, like the Apostles’
Creed, is of unknown authorship, and furnishes one of the most
remarkable examples of the extraordinary influence which some
works of that kind have exerted.
But are the definitions and sharp distinctions set forth in this
_ . . , creed according to the Scriptures? May we read them
bois not un- therein, or prove them thereby? Ho one pretends that
scriptural. severai clauses, or any of the formal definitions, are
taken from the Bible. All such systematic presentations of dogma
are foreign to the style of the Scriptures ; but this fact is no valid
reason for rejecting them, or supposing them to be unscriptural.
“ A creed,” says Schaff, “ ought to use language different from that
of the Bible. A string of Scripture passages would be no creed at
all, as little as it would be a prayer or a hymn. A creed is, as it
were, a doctrinal poem written under the inspiration of divine truth.
This may be said at least of the oecumenical creeds.”1 Hence a
well-constructed creed is supposed to express the sum total of what
the Scriptures teach on a given subject, but not necessarily in the
language or terms of the sacred writers. Nor are its statements to
be supposed to depend on any one or two particular texts or pas¬
sages of the Bible. It is quite possible that the general judgment
of men may legitimately accept as a positive doctrine of Scripture
what no one text or passage, taken by itself alone, would be suffi¬
cient to authorize. The catholic doctrine of the Trinity is very
much of this character. A calm and dispassionate review of ages
of controversy over this important dogma will show that; on the
one hand, the advocates of the catholic faith have made an unscien¬
tific and inconclusive use of many Scripture texts, while, on the
other hand, their opponents ha^e been equally unfair in rejecting
1 The Creeds of Christendom, vol. i, p. 7, foot note.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
587
the logical and legitimate conclusion of a cumulative argument
which rested on the evidence of many biblical statements, of which
they themselves could furnish no sufficient or satisfactory explana¬
tion. The argument from each text may be nullified or largely set
aside, when taken singly and alone ; but a great number and variety
of such evidences, taken as a whole, and exhibiting a manifest co¬
herency, may not thus be set aside.
Thus, for example, the plural form of the name of God (DVi^K)
in the Hebrew Scriptures has often been adduced as
proof of a plurality of persons in the Godhead. A sim- the name of
ilar application has been made of the threefold use of God‘
the divine name in the priestly blessing (Num. vi, 24-27), and the
trisagion in Isa. vi, 3. Even the proverb, 44 A threefold cord is not
quickly broken” (Eccles. iv, 12), has been quoted as a proof-text of
the Trinity. Such a use of Scripture will not be likely to advance
the interests of truth, or be profitable for doctrine. A repetition
of the divine name three or more times is no evidence that the wor¬
shipper thereby intends a reference to so many personal distinctions
in the divine nature. The plural form may as well designate
a multiplicity of divine potentialities in the deity as three personal
distinctions, or it may be explained as the plural of majesty and
excellency (see p. 86). Such forms of expression are susceptible
of too many explanations to be used as valid proof texts of the
Trinity.
So, again, of the passage in Gen. xix, 24, often quoted in the
Trinitarian controversies. “The name Jehovah,” says Language of
Watson, “ if it has not a plural form, has more than one Gen- xix> 24-
personal application. 4 Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon
Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven.’ We
have here the visible Jehovah who had talked with Abraham rain¬
ing the storm of vengeance from another Jehovah out of heaven,
and who was, therefore, invisible. Thus we have two Jehovahs
expressly mentioned, 4 the Lord rained from the Lord,’ and yet we
have it most solemnly asserted in Dent, vi, 4, 4 Hear, O Israel,
Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.’”1 Much more natural and sim¬
ple, however, is the explanation which recognises in this repetition
of the name Jehovah a Hebraistic mode of statement. 44 It is,”
says Calvin, 44 an emphatic repetition.” Browne remarks: 44Aben
Ezra, whom perhaps a majority of Christian commentators have
followed in this, sees in these words a peculiar 4 elegance or grace
of language;’ 4 the Lord rained from the Lord’ being a grander
and more impressive mode of saying, 4 the Lord rained from himself.’
1 Theological Institutes, vol. i, p. 467.
588 PRINCIPLES OF
It is a common idiom in Hebrew to repeat the noun instead of
using a pronoun.” 1
The theophanies of the Old Testament have also been adduced
Angel Of Jeho- in maintaining the doctrine of the Trinity. But what-
vah. ever else may be made of the argument, it furnishes no
sound proof that the Godhead consists of a number of distinct
persons. The Angel of Jehovah, so mysteriously identified with
Jehovah himself (Gen. xvi, 7, 10, 13; xxii, II, 12, 15, 16), and in
whom is the name of Jehovah (Exod. xxiii, 21), is not necessarily a
manifestation of one person of the Godhead rather than another,
but may be explained as a singular manifestation of Jehovah him¬
self without any idea of personal distinctions in his nature or
essence. But while this is admitted on the one hand, it ought not
to be denied, on the other, that in the light of New Testament reve¬
lations of Christ, as the revealed wisdom and power of God, we
may discern in the Old Testament Angel of Jehovah a manifesta¬
tion of him who in the fulness of time took upon himself the form
of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men (Phil, ii, 7). It
was, moreover, a part of the theology of the ancient synagogue
that this angel was the Shekinah, or manifested power and media¬
tion of God in the world.
A similar disposition may be made of many other proofs of the
New Testament Trinity which have been cited from the Old Testament,
doctrine of God. passing into the New Testament we cannot but be
impressed with the language used in John i, 18: “No one has ever
seen God; God only begotten, who is in the bosom of the Father,
he made him known.”2 This remarkable statement leads one to
ask, Who is this only begotten God who is in the bosom of the
Father, and reveals God, or makes him known ? In the first verse
of the same chapter he is called the Word (6 A oyog), and is said to
have been “ with the God ” (npdg rov -deov), and the further statement
1 Speaker’s Commentary, in loco.
2 The more familiar and almost equally well-supported reading, “ only begotten
Son,” conveys essentially the same mysterious and wonderful suggestion. “ Both
readings,” says Hort, “intrinsically are free from objection. The text (God only be¬
gotten), though startling at first, simply combines in a single phrase the two attributes
of the Logos marked before (tfeof, ver. 1, fj.ovoyevr/g, ver. 14). Its sense is ‘ One who
was both T&eog and (lovoyevr/g? The substitution of the familiar phrase 6 /xovoyevrjg
viog for the unique fiovoyevrjg would be obvious, and fiovoyevrjg , by its own pri¬
mary meaning, directly suggested vlog. The converse substitution is inexplicable by
any ordinary motive likely to affect transcribers. There is no evidence that the read¬
ing had any controversial interest in ancient times. And the absence of the article
from the more important documents is fatal to the idea that 0C was an accidental
substitution for YC.” — Appendix to Westcott and Hort’s Greek Testament, p. 74.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
589
is made that he “was God.” Creation is ascribed to him (ver. 3),
and he is declared to be the life and the light of men (ver. 4)!
This Word, it is added in verse 14, “became flesh, and taber¬
nacled among us, and we beheld his glory— glory as of an only be¬
gotten from a Father full of grace and truth.” It is quite possible
that polemic writers may make too much of these wonderful words.
W hat it is to be with the God , and also to be God , may well be treated
as a mystery too deep for the human mind to solve. The Word
which became flesh, according to John i, 14, may fairly be under¬
stood to be identical with him who, according to Paul in 1 Tim.
iii, embodies “the mystery of godliness; he who was manifested
in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among
the nations, believed on in the world, received up in glory.” This
can be no other than Jesus Christ, the Son of God and Son of man.
When, now, we observe that the apostles were commissioned to
“ go forth and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit ” (Matt,
xxviii, 19;) that Paul invokes “the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ,
and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit,” to
be with all the brethren of the Corinthian church (2 Cor. xiii, 13);
and that John invokes grace and peace upon the seven churches of
Asia “from Him who is, and who was, and who is to come, and
from the seven spirits which are before his throne, and from Jesus
Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the
prince of the kings of the land ” (Rev. i, 4, 5), we may with good
reason conclude that God, as revealed in the Hew Testament, con¬
sists of Father, Son, and Spirit existing in some myste- „ , .
. . . r . ® ; Mysterious dis-
nous and incomprehensible unity of nature. From tinctions in the
such a basis the exegete may go on to examine all those dlvme nature*
texts which indicate in anv way the person, nature, and character
of Christ: his pre-existence, his divine names and titles, his holy
attributes and perfectibns, his power on earth to forgive sins, and
other prerogatives and works ascribed to him, and the command
for all men and angels to worship him. The fact that “ God is
Spirit” (John iv, 24) allows us readily to conceive that the Holy
Spirit and God himself are one in substance, and the manner in
which our Lord speaks of the Holy Spirit as the Comforter whom
he will send (John xv, 26; xvi, 7), and whom the Father will send
in his name (xiv, 26), points by every fair construction to a dis¬
tinction between the Father and the Holy Spirit. Putting all these
together we find so many far-reaching and profoundly suggestive
declarations concerning these divine persons, that we cannot logi¬
cally avoid the conclusion enunciated in the creed, that “the Father
590
PRINCIPLES OF
is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; and yet there
are not three Gods, but one God.”
But in the systematic elaboration of this argument the theologian
Abstain from should carefully abstain from unauthorized assertions,
unauthorized A theme so full of mystery and of majesty as the nature
dSputedSread- of God, and his personal revelations in Christ and
inss* through the Holy Spirit, admits of no dogmatic tone.
Assertions like the following from Sherlock are no advantage to
the interests of truth : “ To say they are three divine persons, and
not three distinct infinite minds, is both heresy and nonsense. . . .
The distinction of persons cannot be more truly and aptly repre¬
sented than by the distinction between three men; for Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost are as really distinct persons as Peter, James, and
John.” 1 This is being wise above what is written, and is as harm¬
ful to valid argument as citing and urging texts where the reading
and punctuation are doubtful, or where (as in the case of 1 John
v, 7) the evidence of interpolation is overwhelming. No man
should assume to explain the mysteries of Deity.
The doctrine of atonement in Christ is thus set forth in the
vicarious Atone- Canons of the Synod of Dort: “The death of the Son
ment- of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satis¬
faction for sin; is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient
to expiate the sins of the whole world.”2 The Westminster Con¬
fession of Faith expresses it thus: “The Lord Jesus, by his perfect
obedience and sacrifice of himself, which he through the eternal
Spirit once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of
the Father, and purchased not only reconciliation, but an everlast¬
ing inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the
Father hath given unto him.” 3 It is probable that to many evan¬
gelical Christians neither of these forms of statement is satis¬
factory, while yet, at the same time, they would not reject them
as unscriptural. They contain several phrases which have been so
mixed with dogmatic controversy that many would for that reason
decline to use them, and prefer the simple but comprehensive state¬
ment of the Gospel: “ God so loved the world that he gave the Son,
the only begotten, that every one who believes in him should not
1 Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity, pp. 66, 105. London, 1690. Equally
dogmatic, on the other hand, is the declaration of Norton concerning the doctrines
of the Trinity and the twofold nature of Christ : “ There is not a passage to be found
in the Scriptures which can be imagined to affirm either of those doctrines that have
been represented as being at the very foundation of Christianity.” — Statement of
Reasons for not believing the Doctrines of Trinitarians concerning the Nature of God
and the Person of Christ, p. 63. Third edition, Boston, 1856.
3 See Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, vol. iii, p. 586. 3 Ibid., p. 621.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
591
perish, but have life eternal” (John iii, 16). This Scripture does
not say that the Son was given as “ a sacrifice and satisfaction for
sin,” or that the procedure was a “ perfect obedience and sacrifice
of himself” in order to “fully satisfy the justice of the Father,”
and “purchase reconciliation for all those whom the Father hath
given unto him. ’ Hut, as Alford well says: “ These words, whether
spoken in Hebrew or in Greek, seem to carry a reference to the
offering of Isaac; and Nicodemus in that case would at once be
reminded by them of the love there required, the substitution there
made, and the prophecy there uttered to Abraham (Gen. xxii, 18)
to which ‘ every one who believes ’ so nearly corresponds.” 1
When we proceed to compare with this Scripture its obvious
parallels (as Rom. iii, 24-26; v, 6-10; Eph. i, 7; 1 Peter i, 18, 19;
iii, 18; 1 John iv, 9), and bring forward in illustration of them the
Old Testament idea of sacrifice, and the symbolism of blood (see
above, pp. 358, 359), we may construct a systematic exhibition of
the doctrine of atonement which no faithful interpreter of the
Scriptures can fairly gainsay or resist. It is not a special dogmatic
exposition of any single text, or a peculiar stress laid upon isolated
words or phrases by which a scriptural doctrine is best set forth,
but rather by accumulation of a number and variety of passages
bearing on the subject, the meaning and relevancy of each of which
are obvious.
The awful doctrine of eternal punishment has been greatly con¬
fused by mixing with it many notions which are desti- Eternal Pun-
tute of valid scriptural proof. The refinements of isbment.
torture, delineated in the appalling pictures of Dante’s Inferno,
should not be taken as guides to help us in understanding the words
of Jesus, even though we be told that the Gehenna, “where their
worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched ” (Mark ix, 48), and
“the outer darkness, where shall be weeping and gnashing of
teeth ” (Matt, xxv, 30), authorize such horrible portraitures of the
final doom of the wicked. The fearful representations of divine
judgment and penalty set forth in Scripture need not be interpreted
literally in order to enforce the doctrine of the hopeless perdition
of the incorrigible sinner, and the exegete, who assumes in his dis¬
cussion that the literal import of such texts must be held, weakens
his own argument. Far more convincing and overwhelming is
that mode of teaching which makes no special plea over the ety¬
mology or usage of some disputed word (even though it be aluviog),
but rather holds up to view the uniform and awful indications of
hopeless ruin and utter exclusion from the glory of God which the
1 Greek Testament, in loco.
592
PRINCIPLES OF
Scriptures continually furnish as a certain fearful expectation of
the ungodly. A momentous and eternal truth may he set forth in
figure as well as in literal statement, and the force of the Scripture
doctrine of the final doom of the wicked lies not more in the terri-
Utter absence ble suggestions of positive punishment, tribulation, and
Of scriptural ai)ffUisp than in the absence of any hope of pardon and
wicked. salvation in the future. \ am is the appeal to such a
text as Matt, xii, 32: “Whosoever shall speak against the Holy
Spirit it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this age nor in that
which is to come.” Here, say some, is an implication that for other
sins and blasphemies there may be forgiveness in the age or world
to come. But to this it may at once be answered that such an im¬
plication is at best a most uncertain hope, while on the contrary the
assertion is most positive that the blasphemy against the Spirit
shall never be forgiven. Endless perdition, therefore, awaits such
blaspheming sinners, and will the opponents of eternal punishment
assume that no one ever has committed, or will commit, the blas¬
phemy here meant? In the parallel passage of Mark (iii, 29) we
meet xvith that profound and fearfully suggestive statement, that
“ whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit has no forgive¬
ness forever, but is guilty of (Zvoxog, is held fast bound by) eternal
sin.” How futile and delusive, then, to build a hope on the sugges¬
tions of such a text, when, for aught the reasoner knows, every wil¬
ful sinner, who deliberately rejects the claims of the Gospel and dies
impenitent, commits this blasphemy against the Spirit.
Equally delusive w.ould it be to build a hope of future pardon on
„ . . * what is written in 1 Peter iii, 18-20, and iv, 6. For if
the spirits in we allow the strictest literal construction, and believe
prison. that Christ went in spirit and preached to the spirits in
prison, we have no intimation as to what he preached, or of the
results of that preaching; and the entire statement is confined to
those who w^ere disobedient in the days of Noah. There is no inti¬
mation that he preached to any other spirits, or that any other such
preaching ever took place before, or ever will take place hereafter.
Furthermore, if we infer, from 1 Peter iv, 6, that the purpose of
this preaching to the dead was that they might be rescued from
their prison, and “live according to God in spirit,” it is entirely
uncertain whether any one of them accepted the offer, and were
thus saved. If, however, it be urged that it is altogether presum¬
able that such a preaching of the Gospel by Christ himself would
not be without blessed results, and that such grace shown to one
class of imprisoned spirits is a fair ground for presuming that like
mercy may be extended to many others, if not to all, we have only
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
593
to answer: All these are presumptions which have too mucn against
them in other parts of Scripture .to be made the ground of hope to
any wilful sinner, or to allow our laying down any universal propo¬
sition touching the unknown future.1
e repudiate the notion, often asserted by some, that we may
not use the figurative portions of Scripture for the pur- Doctrine not
pose of establishing or maintaining a doctrine. Figures confined to any
of speech, parables, allegories, types, and symbols are portion1?/ the
divinely chosen forms by which God has communicated ScriPtures-
a large part of his written word to men, and these peculiar methods
of communicating thought may teach doctrine as well as any thing
else (comp. pp. 247, 248). Our Lord has seen fit to set forth his
truth in manifold forms, and it is our duty to recognise that truth
whether it appear in metaphor, parable, or symbol. Is there no
doctrine taught in such metaphors as (Psa. li, 7) “ Purify me with
hyssop,” or (1 Cor. v, 7) “Christ, our passover, was sacrificed”?
Can the doctrine of a new.creation in Christ (2 Cor. v, 17; Gal.
vi, 15), and the renewing of the Holy Spirit (Titus iii, 5), be more
clearly or forcibly set forth than by the figure of the new birth
(regeneration) as used by Jesus (John iii, 3-8) ? Hoes the allegory
of the vine and its branches (John xv, 1-6) teach no doctrine?
Was there no doctrine taught by the lifting up of the serpent in
the wilderness, or in the symbolism of blood, or in the pattern and
service of the tabernacle ? And as to teaching by parables, we may
well observe with Trench: “To create a powerful impression lan¬
guage must be recalled, minted, and issued anew, cast into novel
forms, as was done by him of whom it is said that without a parable
( naQafiohrj , in its widest sense) spake he nothing to his hearers; that
is, he gave no doctrine in the abstract form, no skeletons of truth,
but all clothed, as it were, with flesh and blood. He acted himself
as he declared to his disciples they must act if they would be scribes
instructed unto the kingdom, and able to instruct others (Matt,
xiii, 52) ; he brought forth out of his treasure things new and old;
by the help of the old he made intelligible the new; by the aid of
the familiar he introduced them to that which was strange; from
the known he passed more easily to the unknown. And in his own
1 It scarcely accords with the true spirit of calm theological inquiry to obtrude dog¬
matical assertions as to any possibilities of grace beyond this life. What may be the
future development and opportunities of those who die in infancy, or what may be
allowed in another state of being to such as may be supposed never to have had suit¬
able opportunities of accepting salvation in this life, are questions which God alone
can answer, and the presumption of those who, in the absence of specific revelation,
dogmatize on such themes, is only equalled by the folly of those who would rest their
hopes of the future on such unknown and uncertain possibilities.
38
594
PRINCIPLES OF
manner of teaching, and in his instruction to his apostles, he has
given us the secret of all effectual teaching — of all speaking which
shall leave behind it, as was said of one man’s eloquence, stings in
the minds and memories of the hearers.” 1
But when we come to study the doctrines of biblical eschatology,
Eschatology how little do we find that is not set forth in figure or in
ta°Stlflgurat?ve sym^0^ Perhaps the notable confusion of modern
language. teaching on the subjects of the parousia, resurrection,
and judgment is largely due to a notion that these doctrines must
needs have been revealed in literal form. The doctrine of divine
judgment with its eternal issues is none the less positive and sure
because set forth in the highly wrought and vivid picture of
Matt, xxv, 31-46, or the vision of Rev. xx, 11, 12. “The judg¬
ment seat of Christ” (Rom. xiv, 10; 2 Cor. v, 10) is a metaphorical
expression, based on familiar forms of dispensing justice in human
tribunals (comp. Matt, xxvii, 19; Acts xii, 21; xviii, 12, 16; xxv,
6, 10, 17), and the expositor who insists that we must understand
the eternal judgment of Christ only as executed after the forms of
human courts , only damages the cause of truth.
How, also, has the doctrine of the resurrection become involved
The resurrection doubt and confusion by overwise attempts to tell
of the body. /ww the dead are raised up, and with what body they
come forth! That the body is raised is the manifest scriptural
teaching. Christ’s body was raised, and his resurrection is the
type, representative, and pledge that all will be raised (1 Cor.
xv, 1-22). Many saints who had fallen asleep arose with him, and
it is expressly written that their bodies (awyara) were raised (Matt,
xxvii, 52). Paul’s doctrine clearly is that “he who raised up Christ
Jesus from the dead, shall also make alive your mortal bodies”
(Rom. viii, 11; comp. Phil, iii, 21). Pie does not entertain the
question, on which so many modern divines have wasted specula¬
tion, as, wherein consists identity of body, and may not the dust of
different bodies become mixed, and will all the particles of matter
be restored? But he does employ suggestive illustrations, and by
the figure of the grain of wheat shows that the body which is sown
is “'not the body that shall be” (1 Cor. xv, 37). He calls attention
to the varieties of flesh (uap£), as of men, beasts, birds, and fishes,
and to the great difference between the glory of heavenly and
earthly bodies, and then says that the human body is sown in cor¬
ruption, dishonour, and weakness, but raised up in incorruption,
glory, and power (verses 39-45). “It is sown a natural (i pvxLrcov)
body; it is -raised a spiritual body.” The interests of divine truth
1 Notes on the Parables, p. 27.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
595
have not been helped by dogmatic essays to go beyond the apostle
in the explanation or illustration of this mystery.
In the systematic presentation, therefore, of any scriptural doc-
ti ine, we are always to make a discriminating use of Freedom from
sound hermeneutical principles. We must not study PreP°ssessions
. A 1 J and presump-
them m the light of modern systems of divinity, but tions.
should aim rather to place ourselves in the position of the sacred
writers, and study to obtain the impression their words would natu¬
rally have made upon the minds of the first readers.1 The question
should be, not what does the Church say, or what do the ancient
fathers and the great councils and the (ecumenical creeds say, but
what do the Scriptures legitimately teach? Still less should we
allow ourselves to be influenced by any presumptions of what the
Scriptures ought to teach. It is not uncommon for writers and
preachers to open a discussion with the remark that in a written
revelation like- the Bible we might naturally expect to find such or
such things. All such presumptions are uncalled for and prejudi¬
cial. The assumption that the first chapter of Genesis describes a
universal cosmogony, and that the Book of Revelation details all
human history, or that of the Church, to the end of time, has been
the fruitful source of a vast amount of false exegesis.
The teacher of Scripture doctrine should not cite his proof-texts
ad libitum , or at random, as if any word or sentiment Textsnottol)e
in harmony with his purpose, if only found in the Scrip- cited ad im-
tures, must needs be pertinent. The character of the tum"
whole book or epistle, and the context, scope, and plan are often
necessary to be taken into consideration before the real bearings
of a given text can be clearly apprehended. That doctrine only
is theologically sound which rests upon a strict grammatico-his-
torical interpretation of Scripture, and while all divinely inspired
Scripture is profitable for doctrine and discipline in righteousness,
its inspiration does not require or allow us to interpret it on any
1 In order to be able to explain any one’s words to others, one must understand
them himself, otherwise he cannot render them intelligible to others. One under¬
stands another’s words when by means of them he thinks as did the speaker or writer,
and as he wished one should think. Thus one explains another’s words rightly to
others when he enables them to think precisely what the speaker or writer thought
or wished to be thought. In the interpretation of any writing, it has not to be in-^
quired what the readers for whom it was destined thought, but what, according to the
intention of the writer, they should have thought in reading it. The object of the in¬
terpretation is the thoughts of the writer or speaker, in as far as he has expressed
them in words for others. This does not take away that it often is of great import¬
ance to the interpretation of one or more sayings to inquire how the hearers under¬
stood them. — Doedes, Manual of Hermeneutics, pp. 2, 3. Edinb., 1867.
596
PRINCIPLES OF
other principles than those which are applicable to uninspired
writings. The interpreter is always bound to consider how the
subject lay in the mind of the author, and to point out the exact
ideas and sentiments intended. It is not for him to show how
many meanings the words may possibly bear, nor even how the
first readers understood them. The real meaning intended by the
author, and that only, is to be set forth.
There is much reason for believing that the habit, quite general
New Testament ^nce time Ernesti, of treating the hermeneutics
doctrine not of the New Testament separately from the Old, has oc-
thTheip^ofthe casioned the misunderstanding of some important doc-
01d- trines of Holy Writ. The language and style in which
certain New Testament teachings are expressed are so manifestly
modelled after Old Testament forms of statement, that they cannot
be properly explained without a minute and thorough apprehension
of the import of the older Scriptures.1 We cannot, therefore, ac¬
cept without qualification the following words of Van Oosterzee :
“ We have no right for a use of these (O. T.) Scriptures, in which
we do not take heed to their peculiar character, as distinguished
from those of the New Testament. The Old Testament revelation
must always be regarded first in relation to Israel, and has only
value for our dogmatics in so far as it is confirmed by the gospel
of the New. The letter of the Old Testament must thus be tested
by the spirit of the New, and whatever therein stands in opposition
1 Take for illustration the following passage from one of our most recent and able
works on theology. Speaking of the lawless one mentioned in 2 Thess. ii, 8, Pope
says : “ Prophetical theology has its many hypotheses for the explanation of the sym¬
bols of Daniel and the Apocalypse, and the plain words of St. Paul. But there has
not yet been found on earth the power or the being to whom all St. Paul’s terms are
applicable.” — Compendium of Chr. Theology, vol. iii, p. 394. The critical student of
Daniel’s description of the little horn (Dan. vii, 8, 25; viii, 9-12, 23-25; comp, xi,
36-38), will npte that the words of Paul in 2 Thess. ii, 3-10, are no plainer than those
of Daniel, from whom they are so evidently copied. And if Daniel’s symbols and lan¬
guage were fulfilled, as most of the leading Old Testament exegetes admit, in the law¬
less Antiochus Epiphanes, how can it be said, in view of the equally lawless and blas¬
phemous Nero, that “ there has not yet been found on earth the power or the being
to whom all St. Paul’s terms are applicable?” We might fill volumes with extracts
showing how exegetes and writers on New Testament doctrine assume as a principle
not to be questioned that such highly wrought language as Matt, xxiv, 29-31; 1 Thess.
iv, 16 ; and 2 Pet. iii, 10, 12, taken almost verbatim from Old Testament prophecies of
judgment on nations and kingdoms which long ago perished, must be literally under¬
stood. Too little study of Old Testament ideas of judgment, and apocalyptic language
and style, would seem to be the main reason for this one sided exegesis. It will re¬
quire more than assertion to convince thoughtful men that the figurative language of
Isaiah and Daniel, admitted on all hands to be such in those ancient prophets, is to be
literally interpreted when used by Jesus or Paul.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
597
to the New has as little binding force for our belief as for our life.
A dogma which can be supported only by an appeal to the Old
Testament can only maintain its place in Christian dogmatics if it
manifestly does not conflict with the letter and spirit of the New,
and also stands in close connexion with other propositions derived
from the New Testament.”1
Every distinct portion of Scripture, whether in the Old or the
New Testament, must, indeed, be interpreted in har- one and the
mony with its own peculiar character, and the historical
standpoint of each writer must be duly considered, mehts.
The Old Testament cannot be truly apprehended without always
regarding its relation to Israel, to whom it was first intrusted
(Rom. iii, 2). And while it is true that “the letter of the Old
Testament must be tested by the spirit of the New,” it is equally
true that, to understand the spirit and import of the New Testament,
we are often dependent on both the letter and spirit of the Old. It
may be that no important doctrine of the Old Testament is without
confirmation in the Christian Scriptures, but it is also to be remem¬
bered that every important doctrine of the New Testament may be
found in germ in the Old, and the New Testament writers were all,
without exception, Jews or Jewish proselytes, and made use of the
Jewish Scriptures as oracles of God.
A correct view of this whole subject is taken when we regard
the Hebrew people as of old divinely chosen to hold Confusion of
and teach the principles of true religion. It was not ya^^odes^f
theirs to develop science, philosophy, and art. Other thought,
races attended more to these. It was not until the mystery of God,
enclosed in the Israelitish worship as the bud, blossomed out in the
Gospel, and was given to the Aryan world, that a systematic theol-
ogy began to be developed. These Gentile peoples had long been
trying, by reason and from nature, to solve the mysterious problems
of the universe, and when the Gospel revelation came to them, it
was eagerly seized by many as a clue to the intricate and perplex¬
ing secrets of God and the world. But a failure to apprehend the
letter and spirit of the Hebrew records of faith led also to a failure
to understand some of the doctrines of the Gospel, so that, from the
apostolic age until now, there has been a conflict of Gnostic and
Ebionitish tendencies in Christian thought. It is only as a correct
scientific method enables us to distinguish between the true and the
false in each of these tendencies that we shall perceive that the
revelations of both Testaments are essentially one and inseparable.
There can be, therefore, no complete and thorough hermeneutics of
1 Christian Dogmatics, vol. i, p. 18. New York, 1874.
598
PRINCIPLES OF
New Testament doctrine without a clear insight into the letter and
spirit of the Old.
In the practical and homiletical use of the Scriptures we are also
to seek first the true grammatico-historical sense. The life of
godliness is nourished by the edifying, comforting, and assuring les¬
sons of divine revelation. They serve also, as we have
Practical and ,
Homiletical use seen, for reproof and correction, But in this more sub-
of scripture. ject,ive and practical use of the Bible, words and thoughts
may have a wider and more general application than in strict
exegesis. Commands and counsels which had their first and only
direct reference to those of bygone generations may be equally
useful for us. An entire chapter, like that of Rom. xvi, filled with
personal salutations for godly men and women now utterly un¬
known, may furnish many most precious suggestions of brotherly
love and holy Christian fellowship. The personal experiences of
Abraham, Moses, David, Daniel, and Paul exhibit lights and shades
from which every devout reader may gather counsel and admoni¬
tion. Pious feeling may find in such characters and experiences
lessons of permanent worth even where a sound exegesis must dis¬
allow the typical character of the person or event. In short, every
great event, every notable personage or character, whether good or
evil, every account of patient suffering, every triumph of virtue,
every example of faith and good works, may serve in some way for
instruction in righteousness.1
The promises of divine oversight and care, the hopes and pledges
„ .set before the holy men of old, and all exhortations to
Promises, ad- J
monitions, and watchfulness and prayer, may have manifold practical
warnings. applications to Christians of every age. The same may
be said of all the ancient warnings and appeals to escape the com¬
ing wrath of God which had primary reference to impending judg¬
ments. The carelessness and disobedience of those who lived in
the days of Noah are a lively admonition and warning to all men of
1 The Bible constantly presents general principles, absolute commandments, and
living examples, but it never applies these principles to human actions as recorded
upon its pages. This is left to the enlightened conscience and thoughtful judg¬
ment of the reader. It is God’s will that we should meditate upon all Scripture, and
make ourselves the moral application. The Bible records the pious obedience and
simple and singular faith of Noah, but makes no comment upon it ; and it relates the
story of his shame when overcome by his appetite without a note of warning. Abra¬
ham is sometimes called the friend of God, and is styled in Scripture the father of
them that believe. His marvellous simplicity of character, and unfaltering trust in
God, are fully described in the sacred word, and without note of comment or excuse
the stories of his deceit are also written out. — Pierce, The Word of God Opened, p. 77,
New York, 1868.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
599
every age who follow worldly things alone, and have no care about
their eternal destiny. All the New Testament admonitions to
watch and be in constant readiness for the coming of the Lord are
capable of a most legitimate practical application to believers now, in
reference to the uncertainty of the hour of death. To say, as many
modern Chiliasts, that such an application of the admonitions to
prepare for the parousia is a perversion of the Scripture teaching,
is most futile. The coming of the Lord to a believer at death, in
order to transport his redeemed spirit to paradise, is not, to be
sure, the parousia which Jesus declared would take place within a
generation from his time. But as departure from this life puts an
end to probation, and “ inasmuch as it is appointed unto men once
to die, and after that— judgment ” (Heb. ix, 27), every motive
which should have led men to prepare and watch for the judgment
of the flood, and every exhortation for the contemporaries of Jesus
and Paul to watch and be ready for the parousia, serve ever to ad¬
monish and warn us and all generations to be prepared for that day
and hour when we must pass to eternal judgment of weal or woe.
How much more sensible and forcible is this practical exhortation,
the point and propriety of which all men must feel, than the vision¬
ary appeals of those expositors who would have us believe that we
are now, any day and hour, to expect what Jesus said should take
place within his own generation !
Pre-millennialists and post-millennialists have fallen into notice¬
able confusion in attempts to make such commands as “ Watch
therefore, for ye know not on what day your Lord cometh;”
“ Therefore, be ye also ready;” “ Watch therefore, for ye know
not the day nor the hour” (Matt, xxiv, 42, 44; xxv, 13), consistent
with two thousand years’ delay. Brown, indeed, concedes (Christ’s
Second Coming, p. 20) that “ the death of any individual is, to all
practical purposes, the coming of Christ to that soul. It is his
summons to appear before the judgment seat of Christ. It is to
him the close of time, and the opening of an unchanging eternity,
as truly as the second advent will be to mankind at large.” “ There
is a perfect analogy,” he adds, “ between the two classes of events.
... Still, it is in the way of analogy alone that texts expressive of
the one can or ought to be applied to the other. It can never be
warranted, and is often dangerous to make that the primary and
proper interpretation of a passage which is but a secondary, though
it may be a very legitimate, and even irresistible, application of it.”
All this is very correct, but Mr. Brown falls into the error of the
Chiliasts themselves when he goes on to argue that all the New
Testament admonitions and warnings which imply the nearness of
coo
PRINCIPLES.
the parousia are consistent with centuries, and even millenniums, of
delay. All those warnings and exhortations had, as we have shown
above, immediate and primary application and reference to the end
of the pre-millennial age (aeon), which took place at the fall of the
temple and its cultus, and correct interpretation finds their primary
and only direct reference to that event. But by way of manifest
analogy, and in practical and homiletical use, they have a pertinent
and impressive lesson to all generations of men. And it detracts
from the force and usefulness of these texts to import into them an
imaginary significance which they were never intended to bear.
In all our private study of the Scriptures -for personal edification
„ ^ we do well to remember that the first and great thing
homiletical use is to lay hold of the real .spirit and meaning of the
be S<based.re on sacred writer. There can be no true application, and
correct inter- no profitable taking to ourselves of any lessons of the
Bible, unless we first clearly apprehend their original
meaning and reference. To build a moral lesson upon an erroneous
interpretation of the language of God’s word is a reprehensible pro¬
cedure. But he who clearly discerns the exact grammatico-historical
sense of a passage, is the better qualified to give it any legitimate
application which its language and context will allow.
Accordingly, in homiletical discourse, the public teacher is bound
to base his applications of the truths and lessons of the divine word
upon a correct apprehension of the primary signification of the lan¬
guage which he assumes to expound and enforce. To misinterpret
the sacred writer is to discredit any application one may make of
his words. But when, on the other hand, the preacher first shows,'
by a valid interpretation, that he thoroughly comprehends that
which is written, his various allowable accommodations of the
writer’s words will have the greater force, in whatever practical
applications he may give them.
PART THIRD
HISTORY OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION,
JText to the Holy Scriptures, which are themselves a history and depository
of divine revelation, there is no stronger proof of the continual presence of
Christ with his people, no more thorough vindication of Christianity, no richer
source of spiritual wisdom and experience, no deeper incentive to virtue and
piety, than the History of Christ’s kingdom . JEvery age has a message from
Cod to man, which it is the greatest importance for man to understand, (The
. "Epistle to the Hebrews describes, in stirring eloquence, the cloud of witnesses from
the Old (Dispensation for the encouragement of Christians. Why should not the
greater cloud of apostles, evangelists, martyrs, confessors, fathers, reformers, and ■
saints of every age and tongue, since the coming of Christ, be held up for the
same purpose ? — S chaff.
HISTORY
OP
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
' CHAPTER I.
ANCIENT JEWISH EXEGESIS.
A knowledge of the history of biblical interpretation is of ines¬
timable value to the student of the Holy Scriptures, value and in>.
It serves to guard against errors and exhibits the tory^oT inter¬
activity and elforts of the human mind in its search pretation.
after truth and in relation to noblest themes. It shows what influ¬
ences have led to the misunderstanding of God’s word, and how
acute minds, carried away by a misconception of the nature of the
Bible, have sought mystic and manifold meanings in its contents.
From the first, the Scriptures, like other writings, were liable to be
understood in different ways. The Old Testament prophets com¬
plained of the slowness of the people to apprehend spiritual things
(Isa. vi, 10; Jer. v, 21 ; Ezek. xii, 2). The apostolical epistles were
not always clear to those who first received them (comp. 2 Thess.
ii, 2; 2 Pet. iii, 16). When the Old and New Testaments assumed
canonical form and authority, and became the subject of devout
study and a means of spiritual discipline, they furnished a most in¬
viting field for literary research and theological controversy. On
the one hand, there were those who made light of what 0ri(rin andva_
the prophets had written, attacked the sacred books, riety of inter-
and perverted their meaning ; on the other, there arose prctdtl0ns-
apologists and defenders of the holy volume, and among them not
a few who searched for hidden treasures, and manifold meanings in
every word. Besides assailants and apologists there were also
many who, withdrawing from the field of controversy, searched
the Scriptures on account of their religious value, and found in
them wholesome food for the soul. The public teachers of relig¬
ion, in oral and written discourses, expounded and applied the
oracles of God to the people. Hence, in the course of ages, a great
variety of expositions and a vast amount of biblical literature have
604
HISTORY OF
appeared. The student who acquaints himself with the various
methods of exposition, and with the works of the great exegetes of
ancient and modern times, is often saved thereby from following
new developments of error, and is guarded against the novelties of
a restless fancy. He observes how learned men, yielding to subtle
speculation and fanciful analogies, have become the founders of
schools and systems of interpretation. At the same time be be¬
comes more fully qualified to maintain and defend the faith once
delivered to the saints.
It was the distinguishing advantage of the Jewish people that
they were entrusted with the oracles of God (Rom. iii, 1, 2). But
during the long period between Moses a'nd the Babylonian exile
they showed little appreciation of their heavenly treasure. The
law was ignored, the prophets were persecuted, the people turned
to idolatry, and the penalty of exile and dispersion, foreannounced
by Jehovah himself (Deut. xxviii, 63, 64), followed at last with
terrible severity. In the land of exile, a descendant of Aaron the
high priest, hopeless of Israel’s rise by worldly prow-
Ezr<i the scribe. ° L 1 * j i
ess, set his heart upon the devout study of the ancient
Scriptures. “Ezra prepared his heart to seek 'the law of Jehovah
and to doit, and to teach in Israel statutes and judgments” (Ezra
vii, 10). Possibly the one hundredth and nineteenth psalm was the
result of that study, and shows the impression the law made upon
that studious priest while yet a young man. A profound apprecia¬
tion of God’s law, such as this psalm evinces, would prompt a man
like Ezra to seek the reformation of Israel by calling them to a
rigid obedience of the commandments. We may, accordingly, date
the beginning of formal exposition of the Scriptures at the time of
Ezra. A need was then felt, as not before, of appealing to the
oracles of God. The Book of the Law was recognized as funda¬
mental in the records of divine revelation. The noblest Israelite
was he who delighted in Jehovah’s law, and meditated therein
by night and by day (Psa. i, 2 ; comp. Psa. cxix, 34, 35, 97). The
loss of temple, throne, palace, and regal splendour turned the heart
of the devout Jew to a more diligent inquiry after the words of
Jehovah.
Ezra, accordingly, led a company of exiles back to Jerusalem and
instituted numerous reforms. The commandments forbidding in-
# O
Public instruc- termarnage with the heathen were rigidly enforced, and
tion in the law. the legal feasts and fasts were observed. The public
instruction of the people, as recorded in Neh. viii, 1—8, was a meas¬
ure designed to make known the will of Jehovah, and to develop a
purer religious sentiment among the people. Thenceforth the office
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
605
and work of the scribe became important. He was no longer the
mere recorder of passing events, the secretary, clerk, or TheofSceand
registrar of the king (2 Sam. viii, 17 ’x 1 Kings iv, 3), work of the
but the copyist and authorized expounder of the sacred sclibes*
books. Their devotion to the study and interpretation of the law
brought to the scribes after a time the title of lawyers (' vojukol ).
At an early period they became known as a distinct class, and were
spoken of as families or guilds (1 Chron. ii, 55). Ezra is to be re¬
garded as a distinguished representative of his class. He was not
the only scribe who returned from Babylon (Ezra viii, 16). On the
occasion of the public reading of the law he had the assistance of
learned Levites, who were ablg to explain the ancient Scriptures to
the people. Constant searching of these holy writings led to the
various reforms narrated in the Books of Ezra and Neliemiah.
The great convocations described in Neh. viii, 1-15, were the
first sessions of what is known in Jewish tradition as The Great syn-
the Great Synagogue. The acts of the Jewish leaders agogue.
of that time were without doubt greatly embellished in the later
traditions, but nothing is more probable than that these eminent re¬
formers arranged the order of the sacred books of their nation, and
provided for their systematic reading and exposition. Many mo¬
tives would have naturally prompted to this. The troubles with
the Samaritans, the tendencies to mingle with the heathen, the
neglect to provide for the service of the house of God, all required
that thorough measures should be taken to imbue the Israelites
with the ancient theocratic spirit. Ezra and Nehemiah were too
wise and discerning not to perceive that a devout study of the law
and the prophets would be a mighty educational means of securing
for their people the surest safeguard against the evils to which they
were constantly exposed. With the knowledge of the condition
and circumstances of the Jews at Jerusalem which the Books of
Ezra and Nehemiah furnish, we can scarcely conceive that such
farsighted men as these great leaders and their coadjutors — priests,
Levites, and scribes (Neh. xiii, 13), men of knowledge and discern¬
ment (Neh. x, 28) — would have failed to do substantially all those
things which the unanimous voice of tradition ascribes to the men
of the Great Synagogue. They reformed abuses, provided for the
temple service, and for the public reading and exposition of the
law, and these measures imply a collection of the canonical Scrip¬
tures as the authoritative basis of the entire procedure.1
1 The attempts of some scholars (Alting, Ran, Kuenen) to set aside the traditions
of the Great Synagogue as worthless rabbinical fables are scarcely of a character to
commend themselves to a candid critic. Fables and foolish legends are probably
606
HISTORY OF
The progress of Jewish exegesis from the time of Ezra to the
beginning of the Christian era may be dimly traced in
Jewish exegesis scattered notices of the learned Jews of that period,
after Ezra. *n ^ pre-Christian apocryphal and pseudepigraphal
literature, in the works of Philo Judaeus and Josephus, and in the
Talmud. The rigid measures adopted by Ezra, N ehemiah, and their
associates would seem to have prepared the way for Pharisaism.
The scribes of the period succeeding that of Nehemiah not only
copied the sacred books, and explained their general import, but
took measures to make a hedge about the law. They set a value
on the very letters of the law, and counted their number.1 They
scrupulously guarded against interpolations and changes, but, at
the same time, they gathered up traditions and constructed an oral
law which in time came to have with them an authority equal to
that of the sacred books. Thus originated the Jewish Halachah
Haiacfiah and anc^ Hagadah, the legal and homiletic exegesis. “ The
Magadan. Bible,” says Stanley, “and the reading of the Bible as
an instrument of instruction, may be said to have been begun on
the sunrise of that day when Ezra unrolled the parchment scroll of
the law. It was a new thought that the divine will could be com¬
municated by a dead literature as well as by a living voice. In the
impassioned welcome with which this thought was received lay the
germs of all the good and evil which were afterward to be developed
out of it ; on the one side, the possibility of appeal in each succes¬
sive age to the primitive, undying document that should rectify the
fluctuations of false tradition and fleeting opinion ; on the other
hand, the temptation to pay to the letters of the sacred book a
worship as idolatrous and as profoundly opposed to its spirit as
once had been the veneration paid to the sacred trees or the sacred
stones of the consecrated groves or hills.”2
associated with the tradition, as they are with most of the great persons and events of
Jewish history ; but to reject the entire tradition as unworthy of belief is going quite
too far. It is too well supported by the necessary implication of Ezra’s and Nehe-
miah’s acts to be thus summarily rejected. It would be very uncritical and arbitrary
to reject the statement of 2 Maccabees ii, 13, viz., that Nehemiah founded a library,
and collected the acts of kings and prophets, because the writer elsewhere records
numerous idle legends. In chap, i, 18, the same writer ascribes to Nehemiah what
was done by Zerubbabel and Joshua (comp. Ezra iii-vi), but shall we thence argue
that no such work was done at all ?
1 See Ginsburg, article Scribes, in Kitto’s Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature.
2 Lectures on Hist, of Jewish Church, Third Series, pp. 158, 159. The same writer
further on observes: “There is one traditional saying, ascribed to the Great Syna¬
gogue, which must surely have come down from an early stage in the history of the
scribes, and which well illustrates the disease to which, as to a parasitical plant, the
order itself, and all the branches into which it has grown, has been subject. It
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
607
This superstitious reverence for the letter of the law, and the
disposition of the scribes to fence it around with au- pharisees and
thoritative oral precepts, most naturally led to the later Sadducees.
Pharisaism. But the excessive claims of these ancient scribes pro¬
duced a reaction, and gave rise to the sect of the Sadducees, who
refused to be bound by the traditions of the elders. “ The Phari¬
sees,” says Josephus, “have delivered to the people a great many
observances by succession from their fathers which are not written
in the law of Moses, and for that reason it is that the Sadducees
reject them, and say that we are to esteem those observances to be
obligatory which are in the written word, but are not to observe
what are derived ‘from the tradition of our forefathers; and con¬
cerning these things it is that great disputes and differences have
arisen among them, while the Sadducees are able to persuade none
but the rich, and have not the populace obsequious to them; but
the Pharisees have the multitude on their side.” 1
The manifold precepts and rules, expositions and traditions, which
are commonly known as the Halachali and the Haga- mv . ,
dah, had their origin in these Pharisaic tendencies of
the scribes who succeeded Ezra and his coadjutors. These various
expositions constitute the Midrashim, or most ancient Jewish com¬
mentary. The Halachic, or legal exegesis, was confined to the
Pentateuch, and aimed, by analogy and combination of specific
written laws, to deduce precepts and rules on subjects which had
not been formally treated in the Mosaic Code. This was, in the
main, a reading into the laws of Moses a great variety of things
which they could not, by any fair interpretation, be made to teach.
The Ilagadic exegesis, on the other hand, was extended over the
entire Old Testament Scriptures, and was of a more practical and
homiletical character. It aimed, by means of memorable sayings
of illustrious men, parables, allegories, marvellous legends, witty
proverbs, and mystic interpretations of Scripture events, to stimu¬
late the Jewish people to pious activity and obedience. The Mid¬
rashim thus became a vast treasury of Hebrew national lore. It
resembles in form the famous medieeval motto for the guidance of conventual ambi¬
tion, although it is more serious in spirit: ‘Be circumspect in judging make many
disciples — make a hedge round the law.’ Nothing could be less like the impetuosity,
the simplicity, or the openness of Ezra than any of these three precepts. But the one
which in each succeeding generation predominated more and more was the last:
‘Make a hedge about the law.’ To build up elaborate explanations, thorny obstruc¬
tions, subtle evasions, enormous developments, was the labour of the later Jewish
scribes, till the Pentateuch was buried beneath the Mishna, and the Mishna beneath
the Gemara.” — Jewish Church, Third Series, pp. 165, 166.
Antiquities, book xiii, chap, x, 6. Comp. Wars, book ii, chap. viii.
608
HISTORY OF
was developed gradually, by public lectures and homilies, and be¬
came more and more comprehensive and complicated as new le¬
gends, secret meanings, hidden wisdom, and allegorical expositions
were added by one great teacher after another. We have the sub¬
stance of the Midrashim preserved in the Talmud and the ITagadic
literature of the first three centuries of the Christian era.1
The character of these ancient Jewish expositions of Scripture
Hagadic. her- may be inferred from the kind of hermeneutical princi-
meneutics. pies which were adopted. Among the thirty-two rules
of interpretation collected and arranged by Elieser Ben- Jose the
following are specimens:
By the superfluous use of the three particles, nx, D3> and qtf, the Scrip¬
tures indicate in a threefold manner that something more is included in
the text than the apparent declaration would seem to imply. This rule is
illustrated by Gen. xxi, 1, where it is said “Jehovah visited Sarah”
(rnfeHIK), and the particle ntf is supposed to show that the Lord also vis¬
ited other women besides Sarah.
A subject often explains itself while it imparts information on other sub¬
jects. Thus, in Jer. xlvi, 22, “Its cry shall go like the serpent,” is a state¬
ment whicli serves, besides describing the loud cry of Egypt, to indicate
that the serpent set up a great cry when the Lord pronounced his curse
against it.
A great and incomprehensible thing is represented by something small, to
render it intelligible. Thus, in Deut. xxxii, 2, “ My doctrine shall drop as
the rain,” the great and incomprehensible doctrines of revelation are made
comprehensible by comparison with the rain.
Explanations are obtained by reducing the letters of a word to their
numerical value, and substituting for it another word or phrase of the
same value, or by transposing the letters. Thus, for example, the sum of
the letters in the name of Eliezer Abraham’s servant, is equivalent
to three hundred and eighteen (3'18), the number of his trained men (Gen.
xiv, 14), and, accordingly, shows that Eliezer alone was worth a host of
servants.2
1 Ishmael Ben-Elisa’s Commentary on Exodus xii-xxiii, called Mechilta is
an allegorical treatment of various Mosaic ceremonies, and is one of the oldest speci¬
mens of formal Jewish exposition. Ishmael Ben-Elisa flourished about the close of
the first and the beginning of the second century of our era, and was the author of
several mystic treatises which are still extant. His Mechilta with a Latin translation
is given by Ugolino in the Thesaurus Antiquitatum Sacrarum, vol. xiv, Venice, 1752.
A German translation of numerous ancient Midrashim is given by Wiinsche, Biblio¬
theca Rabbinica; eine Sammlung alter Midrashim zum ersten Male ins Deutsche
iibertragen, Lpz., 1880-1881, 12 thin vols., 8vo.
2 See all these Halachic and Hagadic rules of interpretation stated and illustrated
by Ginsburg, in the article Midrash, in Kitto’s Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature, and
also in M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical
Literature.
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
609
It is easy to see how such hermeneutical principles must neces¬
sarily involve the exposition of the Scriptures in utter Mischief and
confusion. The study of the ancient Jewish exegesis ™lue of the
• , i /. ,, ® Hagadic exe-
is, therefore, of little practical value to one who seeks gesis.
the true meaning of the oracles of God.1 But for evidences of an¬
cient J ewish opinions, and for the criticism of the Hebrew text,
the comments of the older rabbis may sometimes be of great ser¬
vice. “ When it is borne in mind,” says Ginsburg, “ that the anno¬
tators and punctuators of the Hebrew text, and the translators of
the ancient versions, were Jews impregnated with the theological
opinions of the nation, and who prosecuted their biblical labours in
harmony with these opinions ‘and the above-named exegetical rules,
the importance of the Halachic and Hagadic exegesis to the criti¬
cism of the Hebrew text, and to a right understanding of the
Greek, Chaldee, Syriac, and other versions, as well as of the quota¬
tions of the Old Testament in the New Testament, can hardly be
overrated. If it be true — and few will question the fact — that
every successive English version, either preceding or following the
Reformation, reflects the peculiar notions about theology, Church
government, and politics of each period and every dominant party;
and that even the most literal translation of modern days is, in a
certain sense, a commentary of the translator; we ought to regard
it as natural that the Jews, without intending to deceive, or wil¬
fully to alter the text, should, by the process of the Midrash, intro¬
duce or indicate, in their biblical labours, the various opinions to
which shifting circumstance?, give rise.”2 «
How far this Hagadic method of interpretation became current,
or to what extent it was generally adopted by the great Theseptuagint
body of Jews in the world before the Christian era, it HagS^prin?
is impossible to tell. That it became quite general is cipies.
evident. The plain meaning of the Old Testament, as it would im¬
press itself upon the unsophisticated reader, was probably every¬
where allowed. Only the anthropomorphisms and more difficult
passages would at first be set aside as not to be understood liter¬
ally. The Septuagint version is a monumental witness to the manner
1 Surely no exposition of Scripture, however deep its reverence for the letter of
God’s word, could be safe or useful which proceeded on the principles of Rabbi Akiba,
who maintained that every repetition, figure, parallelism, synonyme, word, letter, par¬
ticle, pleonasm, nay, the very shape of a letter, had a recondite meaning, just as
every fibre of a fly’s wing or an ant’s foot has its peculiar significance. See Ginsburg,
Coheleth, translated, with a Commentary, pp. 495, 496, lend., 1861. For much valu¬
able information on Hagadic exegesis, see the whole o>' Vppendix I, and also the
learned Introduction to this Commentary.
2 Ginsburg, in Kitto’s Cyclopaedia, article Midrash
39
610
HISTORY OF
in which the Jews of that age freely admitted fictitious legends
and entire apocryphal books among their holy writings. This was
a very natural outgrowth of Hagadic principles, and while the He¬
brew text was honoured with a superstitious reverence, its transla¬
tion into a Gentile tongue so far removed it from its original glory
that no scruple was felt in lengthening its chronology to a more
apparent harmony with Egyptian notions, and incorporating with it
books like that of the Son of Sirach and the Wisdom of Solomon,
which seemed like a connecting link with Greek philosophy.1 In
like manner the whole body of apocryphal and pseudepigraphal
literature of a pre-Christian date serves to illustrate the uncritical
looseness of Hagadic principles. For while these ancient books fur¬
nish no examples of formal exegesis, they clearly indicate the free¬
dom with which many of the more learned Jews of those days
added philosophy, fiction, and highly Coloured legend to their ac¬
ceptance of the genuine ancient Scriptures.
Aristobulus, the priest, who is mentioned in 2 Macc. i, 10, ap-
, . 4 pears to have been the author of a commentary on the
priest and schoi- Books of Moses. Eusebius speaks of him as “ that most
distinguished scholar who was one of the Seventy who
translated the Holy Scriptures from the Hebrew for Ptolemy
Philadelphus and his father, and dedicated his exposition of the
law of Moses to the same kings.”2 Fragments of this work have
been preserved in Eusebius.3 But all formal attempts, among the
Alexandrian Jews, to expound the Scriptures seem to have sought
especially after hidden and mysterious lore. “The allegorical
1 “ The Wisdom of the Son of Sirach,” says Stanley, “ was followed, at how long an
interval we know not, by the Wisdom of Solomon. As the former book was the ex¬
pression of a sage at Jerusalem, with a tincture of Alexandrian learning, so the latter
book was the expression of an Alexandrian sage presenting his Grecian ideas under
the forms of Jewish history. We feel with him the oppressive atmosphere of the
elaborate Egyptian idolatry (chap, xiii, 2-19; xv, 17-19). We see through his eyes
the ships passing along the Mediterranean waters into the Alexandrian harbour (xiv,
1-6). We trace the footprint of Aristotle in the enumeration, word by word, of the
four great ethical virtues (viii, 7). We recognise the rhetoric of the Grecian sophists
in the Ptolemoean court (v, 9-12; xi, 17, 18); we are present at the luxurious ban¬
quets and lax discussions of the neighbouring philosophers' of Cyrene (ii, 1-7). But
in the midst of this Gentile scenery there is a vo:oe which speaks with the authority
of the ancient prophets to this new world. The book is a signal instance of the cus¬
tom prevalent in the two centuries before the Christian era, both in the Jewish arid
the Gentile world, of placing modern untried writings under the shelter of some ven¬
erable authority.” — History of Jewish Church, Third Series, pp. 804, 305.
2 Ecclesiastical History, book vii, chap, xxxii.
3Praeparatio Evangeliea, vii, 14; viii, 10; xiii, 12. The genuineness of these frag¬
ments of Aristobulus lias been disputed, but is now quite generally conceded.
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
Cll
explanation,” says Gforer, “ could come into existence only among
a people possessed of sacred books, and only at a time when the
spokesmen and leaders of that nation had already chosen for their
possession another philosophy than that presented by the literal
meaning of the written revelation.” 1
In the writings of Philo, the philosophical Jew of Alexandria,
we may trace the development of the Halachic and
TT ,/ . . . .r . _ . - Philo Judaeus,
iiagadic hermeneutical principles as they became more the Aiexan-
fully shaped and coloured by Hellenic culture.2 Juda- dnan'
ism and Hellenism, so to speak, came into closest contact in this
celebrated metropolis of Egypt, and in their spiritual and intellec¬
tual mingling produced what came to be known as Neo-Platonism.
Kingsley maintains that Philo Judaeus was the real father and
founder of this eclectic philosophy.3 The historical importance of
his writings, as a conspicuous fountain-head of allegorical exegesis,
justifies a fuller notice than their intrinsic merits deserve. He was
born ab.out twenty-five years before Christ, and was contemporary
with the principal events of the New Testament history. He was
not improbably an associate or intimate acquaintance of Apollos of
Alexandria, the eloquent Jew who was mighty in the Scriptures
(Acts xviii, 24). He united a deep reverence for the Mosaic reve¬
lation with an absorbing fondness for the speculations of Greek
philosophy, and thus became, from the force of circumstances, an
eclectic philosopher.
Philo appears, at times, to assume or allow the literal sense of a
passage, but his great aim is to exhibit the mystic Notlons of myg_
depths of significance which lie concealed beneath the tic depths of
sacred words. He would not have it supposed that Scnpture-
the divine revelation is of easy apprehension by the common mind,
for such a supposition would have seemed to him like a disparage¬
ment of its hidden labyrinths of divine knowledge, to explore which
requires a kind of supernatural vision. The Hellenic philosophy,
with which he was so fascinated, was assumed to be a natural and
necessary part of the laws of Moses. He seems to entertain no
conception of the historical standpoint of his author, and to have
no realistic or historical sense of the truthfulness or accuracy of the
statements ©f Moses. He seizes upon chance expressions and inci¬
dental analogies as matters of great moment, and lugs in farfetched
notions that are utterly foreign to the plain meaning of the text.
1 Philo und die alexandrinische Theosophie, vol. i, p. 69.
2 See Ritter, Philo und die Halacha. Eine vergleichende Studie unter steter Be-
riichsichtigung des Josephus, Lpz., 1 879. •
3 Alexandria and Her Schools, p. 79, Cambridge, 1854.
G12
HISTORY OF
He shows not the least regard for the connexion and scope of a
passage, or for the integrity of Scripture as a trustworthy record of
facts; nevertheless he treats the law itself as the divinely inspired
word of God.
His principal works consist of a series of expository treatises on
The works of the hooks of the Mosaic law. He makes occasional
pmio. references to other parts of the Old Testament, and also
to a large number of Greek writers, especially the poets and philos¬
ophers. His philosophical theories, theological opinions, and espe¬
cially his doctrine of the Logos, have been the subject of a vast
amount of study and disputation. It is still a question whether the
Logos of Philo is to be understood as a person, or a personification
of the divine reason, or merely a divine attribute. But in a writer
so eclectic and so full of mysticism it is quite probable that these
several notions are much confused, and that no definite answer can
be given. The creation by the word of God, as suggested in the
expression, and God said , so often repeated in the first chapter of
Genesis, was the first indication of the doctrine of the Logos. An¬
other element was added to it by the language used concerning the
angel of Jehovah (Exod. xxiii, 20-22). The doctrine of the divine
wisdom, as set forth in Job xxviii, 12-28, and Prov. viii and ix,
presented it in still another form. The personification of wisdom
is still more emphatic in the apocryphal books of the Son of Sirach
(Ecclesiasticus, chaps, i and xxiv) and the Wisdom of Solomon
(vii, 22-29). The peculiar use of the terms, N*p2W, tOp'D (Word),
and (Shechinah), instead of, or in addition to, the name of
God in the Targums, seems to belong to the same development of
thought. Is it strange, then, that with an allegorist and mystic
like Philo all the various and vague conjectures that had long
floated about these words should have been appropriated, to some
extent, and blended further with Platonic ideas ?
The following specimens will serve to illustrate Philo’s general
style and method of interpreting the Scriptures. Speaking of Par¬
adise, and the trees of life and of knowledge, he observes:
These statements appear to me to be dictated by a philosophy which is
symbolical rather than strictly accurate. For no trees of life,or of knowl¬
edge have ever at any previous time appeared upon the earth, nor is it
likely that any will appear hereafter. But I rather conceive that Moses
was speaking in an allegorical spirit, intending by his Paradise to intimate
the dominant character of the soul, whichds full of innumerable opinions,
as this figurative Paradise was of trees. And by the tree of life he was
shadowing out the greatest of the virtues — namely, piety toward the gods,
by means of which the soul is made immortal — and by the tree which had
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
613
the knowledge of good and evil he was intimating that wisdom and mod¬
eration by means of which things contrary in their nature to one another
are distinguished.1
In Gen. ii, 6, where the Hebrew reads, “A mist (*TK) went up
from the land and Avatered the whole face of the ground,” Philo
adopts the Septuagint version, which is, “ A fountain went up from
the land and watered all the face of the land,” and comments thus:
He here calls the mind the fountain of the earth, and the sensations he
calls the face of the earth, because there is the most suitable place in the
whole body for them with reference to their appropriate energies, a place
that nature, which foreknows everything, has assigned to them. And the
mind waters the sensations like a fountain, sending appropriate streams
over each.2
He thus comments on the planting of Paradise at the east in
Pden (Gen. ii, 8):
Virtue is called a Paradise metaphorically, and the appropriate place for
the Paradise is Eden; and this means luxury; and the most appropriate
field for virtue is peace and ease and joy, in which real luxury especially
consists. Moreover, the plantation of this Paradise is represented in the
east; for right reason never sets and is never extinguished, but it is its
nature to be always rising. And, as I imagine, the rising sun fills the dark¬
ness of the air with light, so also does virtue when it has arisen in the soul
irradiate its mist, and dissipate the dense darkness. “And there,” says
Moses, “he placed the man whom he had formed;” for God being good,
and having formed our race for virtue, as his work which was most akin
to himself, places the mind in virtue, evidently in order that it, like a good
husband, may cultivate and attend to nothing else except virtue.3
Pages might be filled with examples of exegesis like these from
any of the treatises of Philo. The excess of mystic and The allegorical
allegorical fancies which this distinguished writer crowds and Hagadic
. , . . . . t t method per-
mto his expositions is, no doubt, due to a great extent vadedaiuuda-
to the peculiar Alexandrian culture and the spirit of lsm*
eclectic philosophy in the midst of which he was trained. A simi¬
lar spirit prevailed at that time among all the Jews of the disper¬
sion, and the great feasts wThich brought them to Jerusalem “from
every nation under heaven” (Acts ii, 5) tended to cultivate and
strengthen it. Hellenists and Hebrews were terms full of signifi¬
cance (comp. Acts vi, 1). The Jews of Palestine would naturally
1 Treatise on the Creation of the World, sec. liv, Yonge’s Translation (Bohn’s
Ecclesiastical Library), vol. i, p. 46.
2 Treatise On the Allegories of the Sacred Laws, book i, sec. xi. Yonge’s Trans¬
lation, vol. i, p. 59.
3 Ibid., book i., sec. xiv. Yonge’s Translation, vol. i, pp. 63, 64.
614
HISTORY OF
maintain their national and religious peculiarities with greater zeal
and firmness than the foreign-born, Greek-speaking Je^ws on whom
the Hebraic culture and customs would have an inferior hold.
Nevertheless, the tendency to allegorize the Scriptures, and to
hedge them in and load them down with legend, proverb, and par¬
able, was common wherever Judaism had planted a synagogue
and maintained a rabbi. Philo was not the author of his system of
interpretation, nor did it end with him. We trace it in the most
ancient Hagadic literature; it was condemned by Christ and by
Paul (Matt, xv, 1-10; xxiii, 16-24; Mark vii, 5-13; Col. ii, 8;
1 Tim. i, 4; vi, 20; Titus i, 14), but it prevailed in the rival rabbin¬
ical schools of Ilillel and Shammai. The oldest collection of Hala-
chic interpretations is said to have been made by the school of
Ilillel, and the Talmud preserves to us in written form many an
illustration of the absurdly trifling points of difference on which
those ancient masters disputed.
The best ancient Jewish exegesis is represented in the Targums
of Onkelos and Jonathan Ben TJzziel. These are the
Chaldee paraphrases of the Pentateuch and the Proph¬
ets. The Targum of Onkelos on the Pentateuch is of great value
as a translation. It is in the main a tolerably faithful rendering of
the Hebrew, and its occasional explanatory additions are usually
worthy of attention and regard. Its deviations from the Hebrew
consist for the most part in changes of words and constructions for
the purpose of elucidating difficulties, explaining figurative terms,
avoiding forms of expression which might savour of heathenism or
be offensive to the philosophical mind. He avoids anthropomor¬
phisms, and renders Elohim and Jehovah by the Word (xid'd) of
God, the Splendour (top' ) of God, or the Shechinah of God. The
greatest liberty is taken with the poetical passages, where, in some
instances, it is impossible to recognise the original. This Targum
is believed to belong to the first century of the Christian era.
The Targum of Jonathan Ben TJzziel on the Prophets is much
Jonathan Ben more free in its paraphrasing the Hebrew text. On
uzziei. Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings it is generally sim¬
ple, and fairly gives the sense, but on the prophetical books it often
runs into Hagadic additions which have no foundation in the Scrip¬
ture text. It is interwoven with Jewish dogmatical opinions and
current traditions of the time.
Still more free in its interpretations is the Targum of the
other Tar- Pseudo- Jonathan on the Pentateuch. It is a mixture of
gums. loose paraphrase and Halachic and Hagadic legends, and
is evidently of much later origin than the Talmud. The so-called
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
615
Jerusalem Targum on portions of the Pentateuch is of substantially
the same character as that of Pseudo-Jonathan, and has been
thought by some to be only a fragmentary recension of it. The
Targums on the Hagiograplia are of various dates and worth, that
on the Proverbs adhering more closely to the original text than any
of the others.1
The Talmud in its present form is a collection of the comments,
opinions, and discussions of generations of Jewish
teachers. It is divided into two parts, the Mishna and e a mu '
the Gemara, and embodies the substance of the Halachic and Ha-
gadic comments and traditions which were current at the time of
the destruction of Jerusalem, and for hundreds of years thereafter.2
According to Jewish tradition Moses received at Sinai, in addition
to the Pentateuch, an unwritten oral law, and afterward delivered
it over to Joshua. Joshua delivered the same to the elders, and
they to the prophets, from whom it came into the possession of the
men of the Great Synagogue, the last of whom was Simon the
Just, who was contemporary with Alexander the Great (B. C. 325).
Simon transmitted it to Antigonus of Soco, and so it was passed
onward until it came into possession of the schools of Hi! lei and
Shammai. All this is recorded in the Talmudic treatise on the
Fathers (HUN -pjQ, Pirke Aboth). These schools, especially that
of Hill el, sifted and preserved these laws, until Rabbi Judah the
Holy (about A. D. 200) compiled and codified them in six Sedarim
(□nip, orders, or arrangements), thenceforth known as the Mishna.
“Rabbi Judah’s great desire,” says Polano, “was to p0iano on the
create among the people a love for the study of the Mishna.
law, and a familiarity with its beauties and its moral and religious
code. He saw that a complete knowledge of the law was limited to
a comparatively few, who were dispersed through many countries,
and he feared it might in time be entirely forgotten if the interest
in its study was allowed to decrease as it had for some time been
diminishing. With the aid of the sages and pupils of his college
he set diligently to work, and collecting the rules, explanations,
and traditions extant since the death of Moses, he inscribed them
into six volumes, which he called the Mishna, or Second Law. One
hundred and fifty years after the destruction of the second temple
the redaction was completed. Many of the laws were already
1 On the Targums, see Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, Kitto’s Cyclopaedia of Bibli¬
cal Literature, and McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and
Ecclesiastical Literature, article Targum.
2 For a popular account of the Talmud, see Emanuel Deutsch, in the Quarterly Re¬
view (Lond.) of Oct., 1867, and republished among his Literary Remains, N. Y., 1874.
616
HISTORY OF
obsolete, even on their first publication. Rome hacl long before
substituted her own penal code for that belonging to the Jewish
nationality ; the minute injunctions regulating the sacrifices and
the temple services had but an ideal value, and many of the other
laws applied particularly to Palestine, where but comparatively few
of the people remained. Yet the whole was received in Palestine
and Babylonia, not merely as a record of the past, but as a holy
work, an infallible textbook, a record of laws that, witji the res¬
toration of the commonwealth, would come into practice as in
time past. All Israel gave thanks for the completion of this great
undertaking.” 1
The Mishna, however* did not include all the Midrashim which
The formation were current at the time of its compilation. Nor was
oftheGemara. the text of the Mishna sufficient to furnislx law and
counsel for every question of Jewish casuistry. Doubts and differ¬
ences of opinion led to new discussions, and these later comments
and opinions, chiefly those of great teachers at Tiberias, in Pales¬
tine, and at Sora, in Babylonia, grew into a vast commentary on
the Mishna. These later doctors of the law are known as the
Amoraim (or Gemaraim, from 1E3, to complete — supplementers or
finishers of the law), and the collection of their comments on the
Mishna, accordingly, acquired the name of the Gemara.2 The
Amoraim of Tiberias completed their work about A. D. 350, and,
together with the Mishna, this collection is known as the Pales¬
tinian or Jerusalem Talmud.3 The Babylonian Talmud was not
1 Selections from the Talmud ; being Specimens of the Contents of that Ancient
Book, etc. Translated from the Original, p. 24. Philadelphia, 1876. For a conve¬
nient English translation of selections from all the Sedarim of the Talmud, see Barclay,
The Talmud. London, 1878. The best edition of the entire Mishna is that of Suren-
husius, with a Latin translation. Amsterdam, 1668-1703. 6 vols., fol.
2 The rabbis of the period, A. D. 180 to A. D. 500, are commonly called the Tal¬
mudists. They are divided into two classes, the Tanaim, who compiled the Mishna,
and the Amoraim, who formed the Gemara. These Talmudists were preceded by the
more ancient scribes, known as the Sopherim, and followed by the Saboraim, or
teachers of the Law, after the completion of the Talmud (from A. D. 500 to A. D. 657),
and later by the Gaonim, who flourished at Babylon from A. D. 657 to A. D. 1038.
See Ginsburg, article Scribes, in Kitto’s Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature, and M’Clin
tock and Strong’s Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature.
See also Bacher, Die Agada der babylonischen Amoraer. Ein Beitrag zur Geschicnte
der Agada und zur Einleitung in den babylonischen Talmud. Strassburg, 1878.
3 The Jerusalem Talmud treats only four of the six Sedarim or orders of the Mishna,
the treatise Niddah, and a few fragmentary portions. It was first published at Venice
in 1523. Many subsequent editions. A large part of it, with a Latin translation, is
published in Ugolino’s Thesaurus Antiquitatum Sacrarum, vols. xvii, xviii, xx, xxv.
and xxx. See Wunsche, Der jerusalemische Talmud in seiner haggadischen Bestana-
theilen, zum ersten Male ins Deutsche iibertragen. Zurich, 1880.
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
617
completed until about A. D. 550.1 The language of both Talmuds
is a corrupt form of Hebrew, a kind of barbarous mixture of Hebrew
and Aramaic, made specially obscure by a liberal use of words from
the Arabic, Persian, Coptic, Greek, and Latin tongues. The style
is made the more obscure by an abundance of technical terms and
abbreviations. It is a most difficult and uninviting task for an
English student to attempt to master this storehouse of Jewish
thought.
On the general character of the Talmud as a whole Delitzsch
remarks: “ Those who have not in some degree accomplished the
extremely difficult task of reading the work for themselves will
hardly be able to form a clear idea of this polynomial colossus. It
is a vast debating club, in which there hum confusedly the myriad
voices of at least five centuries. As we all know by experience, a
law, though very minutely and exactly defined, may yet be suscep¬
tible of various interpretations, and question on question is sure to
arise when it comes to be applied to the ever-varying circumstances
of actual life. Suppose, then, you have about ten thousand legal
definitions all relating to Jewish life and classified under different
heads, and add to these ten thousand definitions of about five hundred
doctors and lawyers, belonging mostly to Palestine or Babylonia,
who make these definitions, one after the other, the subject of ex¬
amination and debate, and who, with hair-splitting acuteness, exhaust
not only every possible sense the words will bear, but every pos¬
sible practical occurrence arising out of them. Suppose that the
fine-spun threads of these legal disquisitions frequently lose them¬
selves in digressions, and that, when one has waded through a long
tract of this sandy desert, one lights, here and there, on some green
oasis consisting of stories and sayings of universal interest. This
done, you will have some tolerable idea of this enormous and, in its
way, unique code of laws, in comparison with which, in point of
comprehensiveness, the law books of all other nations are but lilli-
putian, and, when compared with the hum of its kaleidoscopic Babel,
they resemble, indeed, calm and studious retreats.”2 Nevertheless
the Talmud has for twelve hundred years exerted a moulding influ¬
ence on Jewish thought, and the later rabbinical exposition of the
Old Testament Scriptures is deeply imbued with its spirit.
1 The Babylonian Talmud was first published at Venice, 12 vols. fol., 1520-1523.
Many subsequent editions. A Latin translation of three treatises of this Talmud may
be found in Ugolino’s Thesaurus, vols. xix and xxv.
2 Judisehes Handwerkerleben zur Zeit Jesu, p. 35. Erlangen, 1879.
618
HISTORY OF
CHAPTER II.
LATER RABBINICAL EXEGESIS.
Inasmuch as all Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament forms
Jewish exposi- a kind of world h7 itself> we may> for tke sake of
tions obscure of treatment, attend in this place to the later rabbin-
veiTorT Israel’s ical methods of exposition which followed upon the
heart. completion of the Talmud, and which still obtain. As
long as the veil, which is upon the he irt of Israel (2 Cor. iii, 14-16),
remains unlifted, so that they cannot discern in their ancient ora¬
cles the prophecies of the Lord Christ as they have been fulfilled in
Jesus of Nazareth, so long we may not expect to find among Jewish
exegetes a clear and consistent elucidation of the Old Testament.
Although the Talmudists, like the Pharisees of our Lord’s time,
The sect of the have ever been the more numerous and popular party
Karaites. among the Jews, their methods of teaching were prob¬
ably never at any one period universally accepted among the scat¬
tered tribes. The more rationalistic class, known in antiquity as
the Sadducees, have had their representatives in all later times,
though these later critics have not continued to accept the doctrines
known to have been once held by the Sadducees. One of the old¬
est sects of the Jewish synagogue was that of the Karaites (D'fcTij?,
readers , or literalists), who rejected the authority of the oral law,
and all the traditions and precepts of Hagadic literature. They
did not, however, refuse to accept from the Talmud, tradition, or
any other source, that which might serve as an exegetical aid to the
understanding of the Scriptures, nor did they ignore the deeper
spiritual sense. They made frequent use of metaphorical modes of
explanation, but studied to be free from the superstitions and fol¬
lies of the Talmudists. The Karaites exist, at the present day, in
greatest numbers in the Crimean peninsula, and possess an exten¬
sive literature on biblical interpretation and other subjects; but
their works are written in Arabic, corrupt Hebrew, Turkish, and
other languages of the East, and are little known to the western
nations.1
The strict methods of the Karaites had much influence in
restraining the extravagance of the opposite schools, and obtained
1 See Fiirst, Geschichte des Karaerthums (Lpz., 1865), and Rule, History of the
Karaite Jews, London, lSYO.
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
619
considerable prevalence during the eighth and ninth centuries.
The celebrated Rabbi Saadia-Gaon, born in Egypt about Saadia Hag_
A.D. 892, received his early training from an eminent Gaon-
Karaite teacher, and thereby doubtless acquired a freedom from
many of the current rabbinical superstitions of his age. He was
among the first of his race to cultivate the science of grammar,
and became distinguished as a commentator, theologian, and orator.
He did not embrace the Karaite doctrines, but contended for the
necessity of tradition, and urged that many precepts of the Mosaic
law, as well as numerous Jewish doctrines and historical facts, were
dependent on oral tradition. He was the author of an Arabic trans¬
lation (with annotations) of the Pentateuch,1 2 the Book of Job, the
Psalms of David, and the prophecy of Isaiah. He also wrote com¬
mentaries on the Song of Songs, the Minor Prophets, the Book of
Daniel, and other parts of the Old Testament. Contemporary with
Saadia was Jeshua Ibn Sadal (about 920), who wrote
a commentary on the Pentateuch and Job; his son, Ibn Sadal-
Abul Faraj Aaron, also wrote an Arabic commentary on the Penta¬
teuch. Other less noted Jewish scholars wrote similar works about
the same period.3
One of the most eminent of the Karaite exegetes was Japheth
Ben Ali, who flourished at Basra, in Arabia, in the japheth Ben
latter part of the tenth century. “ His gigantic com- Ali*
mentaries,” says Ginsburg, “.must have exercised great influence on
the development of biblical exegesis, as may be concluded from the
fact that Aben Ezra had them constantly before him when writing
his expositions of the Old Testament, and that he quotes them with
the greatest respect. The manuscripts of these commentaries,
which consist of twenty large volumes, are in Paris and Leyden.
The eminent orientalist, Munk, brought, in 1841, from Egypt to the
royal library at Paris, eleven volumes, five of which are on Genesis,
and many sections of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers; two vol¬
umes are on the Psalms, one is on Proverbs, and one on the five
Megilloth. The commentaries, which are in Arabic, are preceded
by the Hebrew text and an Arabic translation.” 3
From the tenth century and onward a more grammatical and
thorough exegesis obtained among the learned Jews. The influ¬
ence of the Karaites, and the studies and disputes of the rabbinical
1 Saadia’s Arabic version of the Pentateuch is published in the Paris and London
Polyglots.
2 See Furst’s Contribution to the History of Hebrew Lexicography, prefixed to his
Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon.
8 Kitto’s Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature, article Japheth Ben Ali.
620
HISTORY OF
schools at Tibtrias in Palestine, and of Sora and Pumbaditha in
More gram- Babylonia, all had this necessary effect. “ About this
maticai turn of time,” says Nordheimer, “ occurred the dispute respect-
in tenth cen- ing the various readings of the Bible between Aaron
tury* Ben Asher of Tiberias and Jacob Ben Naphtali of Pum¬
baditha, from which dates the general collection of such readings
and their division into two classes, called, after those who used
them, Oriental and Occidental. From the period when the J ewish
mind ceased to be fettered by the almost despotic power of their
spiritual and secular rulers, other branches of knowledge, as phi¬
losophy, philology, and poetry, began to be cultivated among the
rabbis, although long held subordinate to the study of the Talmud,
and considered simply in the light of auxiliaries to the religious
and moral teachings of the synagogue. The attention of the rabbis
and other learned men of the time was, accordingly, directed for
the most part to Talmudic explanations of the Scriptures, and to
polemical treatises in defence of the Mosaic religion against Chris¬
tianity and Islamism.” 1
One of the most distinguished scholars of this period was Rabbi
Solomon Isaac, commonly called Rashi (sometimes erro¬
neously Jarchi). He was born at Troyes, in France,
about A. D. 1040, and at an early age became notably proficient in
his acquaintance with the Scriptures and the Talmud. Much of
his life was spent in travel and visiting the different seats of learn¬
ing in Germany, Italy, Greece, Palestine, Egypt, and Persia. He
wrote commentaries on the entire Old Testament (excepting Job
and Chronicles), and also on a large portion of the Talmud. His
commentaries on the Scriptures are printed in the great rabbin¬
ical Bibles, and are regarded by the Jewish people as almost a part
of the Bible itself. His method is to give a simple and literal
explanation of the Hebrew text, but his great devotion to the Tal¬
mud led him to attempt a combination of the Halachic and Hagadic
fancies with the literal sense. This course often involved him in
manifest contradictions and inconsistency. His effort to condense
and abbreviate makes his style very obscure, and several Jewish
scholars have written commentaries on his expositions in order to
elucidate some of his perplexing passages.2
1 The Rabbis and their Literature ; article in the American Biblical Repository for
July, 1841, p. 162.
2 All Rashi’s commentaries, together with several Jewish commentaries upon them,
were translated into Latin by Breithaupt, and accompanied by extensive annotations,
four vols., Gotha, 1710-14. Specimens of Jewish commentary, translated into En¬
glish, and representing Rashi, KimchJ, Aben Ezra, Saadia, and Maimonides, are given
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
621
Rabbi J oshua Ben J ehudah, a famous Karaite commentator, also
lived in the eleventh century. His expositions are said Joshua Ben
to cover all the books of the Old Testament, but they Judah-
exist only in manuscript. He is often quoted by Aben Ezra. He
was distinguished as a philosopher and grammarian as well as a
learned exegete.
As the Jews became more and more scattered abroad, rabbinical
schools and learned teachers arose in different places, The Spanish
and not the least noted were those of Spain. During sch00ls.
the rule of the Moors in Spain the Jewish population of that coun¬
try enjoyed great liberties, and many who fled from persecution in
other lands found a refuge and protection there. Already the cab¬
alistic philosophy and mysticism, as represented in the books Jez-
irah and Zohar,1 had become widespread, and, indeed, Jewish
thought had always manifested a tendency to indulge in mystic
fancy. But against this tendency, and in favour of a thorough
grammatical interpretation, was Aben Ezra of Toledo.
We know but little of the facts of his life, save that he
was born in 1092, travelled extensively, and was regarded as second
to none of the great rabbinical scholars of the Middle Ages. His
greatest work is a commentary on the Pentateuch which is pub¬
lished in the rabbinical Bibles, and also separately. His hermeneutical
principles may be best inferred from the following passage in the
preface to his Commentary on Genesis: “Those rabbis who reside
among the Arabs take occasion to connect the study of biblical
interpretation with that of natural history and metaphysics; but
every one who desires to become acquainted with these sciences
will do better to study them in books that treat of them alone.
Others, as the Karaites, seek to explain all these matters from the
Bible, and to establish them upon what is there contained. A
third class, the Cabalists, grope in total darkness, thinking to dis¬
cover symbols in every part of the law; the errors of these men
scarcely deserve a serious refutation; although in one respect they
are right, viz., in asserting that all laws are to be weighed in the
balance of reason — for in every heart is a mind which is a reflection
of God’s Spirit, and when this is opposed to the literal acceptance
in Turner’s useful little volume entitled Biographical Notices of some of the Most Dis¬
tinguished Jewish Rabbis, and translations of portions of their commentaries. New
York, 1847.
1 See the articles Cabala (or Kabalah), Jezirah, and Zohar, in the Cyclopsedias of
Herzog, Kitto, and M’Clintock and Strong. See also the Kabbalah; its Doctrines,
Development, and Literature; an Essay, by C. D. Ginsburg (London, 1865); and
Eranck, La Kabbale ; ou La Philosophic Religieuse des Hebreux. Paris, 1843.
G22
HISTORY OF
of the Scripture, a deeper meaning is to be looked for, reason being
the messenger between God and man. If, however, the plain in¬
terpretation of a passage be not opposed to reason, why should wTe
seek for any other? Notwithstanding, there are phrases which con¬
tain both a literal and an allegorical meaning, as, for instance, the
terms circumcision and tree of knowledge. A fourth class explain
everything according to the Hagadah without regard to the laws
of grammar; but what purpose is served by repeating the often
contradictory views that have been already detailed in so many
Talmudic writings ? Some of these Hagadic explanations have, in¬
deed, a deeper meaning than appears on the surface; but the major¬
ity of them are designed merely as an agreeable relaxation for the
mind when wearied by the study of the Halachah. A fifth method
is that followed by myself: this is, first to determine the grammat¬
ical sense of a passage; next to consult the Chaldee version of
Onkelos, although this, especially in the poetical portions, often
departs from the simple meaning; and for the legislative books of
the Bible I call in the aid of tradition.”
We note here the strong hold which Talmudic study and Jewish
tradition had upon the mind of Aben Ezra, but it is remarkable
that he should nevertheless become so free from Hagadic fancies
in an age when that style of exegesis extensively prevailed. De¬
spite his occasional allegorizing, and self-amusement in cabalistic
trifling, his exegetical works are full of varied learning and valu¬
able suggestions.1
Moses Maimonides, often called Rambam, was born at Cordova,
MosesMaimon- A. D. 1135. While yet a youth he became thoroughly
ides. instructed by his father in Hebrew and Talmudic lit¬
erature, and in mathematics and astronomy. When only thirteen
years old he was obliged to leave Spain on account of Mohammedan
persecution, and went to Accho, Jerusalem, Hebron, and finally
settled in Egypt, where, about 1168, he completed his great com¬
mentary on the Mishna, and published it with the title of Book of
Light. This was written in Arabic, and afterward translated into
Hebrew, and has been published in many editions, generally along
with the text of the Mishna. His great aim was to harmonizo
Judaism with science and philosophy, and so great became his in¬
fluence and authority as a teacher that he was resorted to by Jews
from all lands as the great oracle in matters of religion, lie sub¬
sequently published another work of even greater magnitude than
the former, which he called Second Law (Mishna-Torah), or the
1 See Turner, Biographical Notices of some of the Most Distinguished Rabbis,
pp. 31-34. New York, 1847.
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
623
Mighty Hand (npmn T, Tad Ilachezakah). It consists of fourteen
books (t=14), and is a cyclopaedia of biblical and Jewish literature.
Each article furnishes a lucid abstract of the ancient traditional
expositions of those who were regarded as the highest authorities
in their respective departments. It was like the creation of a new
Talmud, and marked the beginning of a new epoch in Judaism.
His third great work was entitled Moreh Nebuehim (dvduj mio),
or Guide of the Perplexed. “This religio-philosophical work,”
says Ginsburg, “ created a new epoch in the philosophy of the Mid¬
dle Ages. Hot only did Mohammedans write commentaries on it,
but the Christian schoolmen learned from it how to harmonize the
conflicts betwmen religion and philosophy. The great aim of Mai-
monides— to harmonize in his writings the written and the oral
law — obliged him to reject many things in the rabbinic writings
which many of his talmudic brethren held inviolably sacred. This
involved him in extensive and painful controversies during the rest
of his life, and he had the mortification of seeing the Jewish nation
divided into two parties; the one fighting with anathemas against
him, regarding him as a heretic, and consigning his work to the
flames, and the other defending him as an angel, the messenger of
a new covenant. In the midst of this conflict the 4 Great Luminary ’
of the Jewish nation was extinguished Dec. 13, 1204.” 1 notwith¬
standing all the opposition to some of his views which has here and
there been made, there is probably no Jewish name more honoured
than that of Maimonides. His works have appeared in many edi¬
tions and translations, and the Jews have a saying that “from
Moses even until Moses there has not arisen one like Moses.” He
has been honoured with the titles of ‘‘the Great Luminary,” “the
Glory of Israel,” and “ the Second Moses.”1 2
Other Spanish Jews who greatly promoted the interests of He¬
brew grammar and philology were Ibn Balaam, of Seville, Salomon
Ben Jehuda, of Malaga, and Ibn Giath (Isaac Ben Jehudah), who
is said to have written a commentary on Ecclesiastes. But of far
1 Kitto’s Cyclopsedia of Biblical Literature, article Maimonides. For an account of
the editions and translations of Maimonides’ works, comp, also M’Clintock and Strong’s
Cyclopaedia, article Maimonides.
2 “ No man since Ezra,” says Wise, “ had exerted so deep, universal, and lasting an
influence on Jews and Judaism as Moses Maimonides. His theologico-philosophical
works gained an authority among the progressive thinkers equal to his Mishna-Torah
among rabbinical students. All Jewish thinkers up to date — Baruch Spinoza, Moses
Mendelssohn, and the writers of the nineteenth century included— are more or less the
disciples of Maimonides ; so that no Jewish theologico-philosophical book, from and
after A. D. 1200, can be picked up in which the ideas of Maimonides form not a
prominent part.” — The Israelite for Dec. 1, 1871.
624
HISTORY OF
The Kimchis.
Redak.
greater fame in exegetieal literature were the three Kimchis, father
and two sons. Joseph Kimchi, the father of Moses and
David Kimchi, was born in the latter part of the elev¬
enth century, but was driven from Spain by Mohammedan persecu¬
tion, and settled at Narbonne, in France, where he introduced the
thorough methods of scriptural study for which the Spanish Jews
had become justly celebrated. He has been called the Aben Ezra
of Southern France. He wrote commentaries on the Pentateuch
and the Prophets, and on Job and Proverbs. He excelled espe¬
cially as a theologian and polemical writer, and was the author of
several treatises against Christianity.
Moses Kimchi, the eldest son of the preceding, was the author of
several treatises on grammar, and of commentaries on Proverbs,
Ezra, and Nehemiah, which are printed in the rabbinical Bibles,
and are much esteemed by Jewish scholars. But the most distin¬
guished of this name was David, son of Joseph and brother of Moses
Kimchi, born at Narbonne about A. D. 1160. He is often called
by the Jews Redak (from the initial letters p T "i, Rabbi
David Kimchi). He defended the simple grammatical
method of exposition against the Jewish writers of his time who
adopted Ilagadic and cabalistic opinions, and also defended Maimon-
ides in the disputes which arose over the publication of his Moreh
Nebuchim. He wrote commentaries on the Pentateuch, the earlier
and later prophets, the Psalms, and the Books of Job, Ruth, and
Chronicles, most of which have been published in the rabbinical
Bibles.1 Christian scholars of his time and long after were greatly
influenced by his writings, and used them freely in the preparation
of their lexical and grammatical works.
About A. D. 1201 Bechai, or Bachja Ben Asher, composed a
commentary on the Pentateuch. He aimed, however, to
exhibit a fourfold sense in the Scriptures, the grammat¬
ical, rational, allegorical, and cabalistic.2
Ibn Caspi, born in France about 1280, deserves honourable men¬
tion among Jewish scholars and exegetes. He early be¬
came a great admirer of Maimonides, and travelled in
many lands to perfect his studies. He composed commentaries on
Proverbs, the Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, and several of the
prophets, but only a few portions of his exegetieal works have yet
been published. He appears to have discarded the allegorical and
Bechai.
Ibn Caspi.
1 Latin translations of David Eimchi’s commentaries on Isaiah, Joel, Jonah, and the
Psalms have been published at various places, and an English translation of his com¬
mentary on Zechariah and Preface to the Psalms by M’Caul appeared at London, 1837.
2 Comp. FLirst, Bibliotheca Judaica, vol. i, p. 75.
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
625
Tanchum-
Ralbag.
mystical methods of interpretation current in his day, and to have
maintained the simple grammatical import of the Scriptures.1
In the latter part of the thirteenth century Jewish biblical
exegesis received some valuable contributions from Tanchum Ben
Joseph of Jerusalem. He wrote commentaries in Arabic
on the entire Old Testament, most of which are said to
be still extant in manuscript in the Bodleian Library. Those on
Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, and Lamentations have been pub¬
lished, and show that his general method is that of a free and
rational interpretation.2
Levi Ben Gershon, commonly called Ralbag (also Gershonides),
flourished in France at the beginning of the fourteenth
century, and published commentaries on nearly all the
books of the Old Testament, most of which have been published in
the rabbinical Bibles. His habit is first to give an explanation of
the words of a section, then set forth the sense according to the
context, and finally to make a practical application of the whole.3
Ibn Danan, who flourished at Grenada A. D. 1460-1502, acquired
distinction by several learned works on the Criticism and
Interpretation of the Old Testament. His Commentary
on Isa. liii is noted for its opposition to the anti-Messianic exposition
of that Scripture by Ibn Caspi.
Another famous rabbi of this period was Isaac Abrabanel, born
at Lisbon in 1437, and died at Venice in 1508. His work
entitled Mashmia Yeshuah (njnE” WWD, Herald of Sal¬
vation) furnishes a complete view of the Jewish doctrine of the
Messiah. lie was also the author of commentaries on the Penta¬
teuch, the earlier and later Prophets, and on Daniel. He is regard¬
ed by later Jewish writers as almost the equal of Maimonides. His
exegetical method is in the main sound and useful, and he studies
to bring out the primary and literal sense of the Scriptures.4
Ibn Danan.
Abrabanel.
1 Parts of Ibn Caspi’s Commentary on Proverbs were published by W erbium er in
1846, and an analysis of his work on Ecclesiastes, and Introduction to Song of Songs
is given in Ginsburg’s commentaries on these books.
8 Tanchum’s Arabic Commentary on Judges i-xii was published by Schnurrer, Tub.,
1791; chaps, xii-xxi, by Haarbrucker, Halle, 1847; on Samuel and Kings, Lpz., 1844;
and on Joshua, Berl., 1862. His Habakkuk was published with a French translation
by Munk, in Cahen’s Bible (vol. xiii), Paris, 1843.
3 Excerpts of Ralbag’s commentaries on the Pentateuch and the earlier prophets are
given in a Jewish-German version in Jekutiel’s German version of the Bible, Amsterd.,
1676-78, and a Latin translation of his Proverbs was published by Ghiggheo, Milan, 1620.
4 Abrabanel’s commentaries have been issued in many editions. A Latin transla¬
tion of his Commentary on the Pentateuch was published at Hannover, 1710’ on the
earlier prophets, Lips., 1686; on Isaiah, Frankfurt, 1711. .
40
626
HISTORY OF
Ibn Chajim.
Among other Jewish writers who contributed to the literature of
urbino and Old Testament exegesis, we find Solomon Ben Abraham
Norzi. Urbino, the author of a Lexicon of the Synonymes of
the Old Testament, illustrated by quotations from the Bible, the
Targums, and the works of the great Hebrew philologists of the
preceding ages.1 Another distinguished name is Salomon Jedidja,
commonly called Norzi, an Italian rabbi, born about 1560, whose
great work was a critical edition of the Hebrew text of the Bible.
For this purpose he made a very extensive collation and use of all
the various readings he could find in manuscripts, Midrash, Talmud,
and the whole cycle of rabbinical literature. His work remained
in manuscript for more than a hundred years, and was published
by Basila, in two volumes, Mantua, 1742-44. A second edition
appeared at Vienna in 1816.
Ibn Chajim, born at Fez, in Africa, about 1570, wrote a com¬
mentary on Joshua, parts of which are published in Frank¬
furter’s great Rabbinical Bible. He also wrote a treatise
on Rabbi Ishmael’s thirteen rules for interpreting the Scriptures.
It was in the sixteenth century, also, that Rabbi Salomon Ben
Melech wrote his commentary on the whole Bible, which
Bleek describes as “short and condensed, giving almost
exclusively grammatical and lexicographical explanations, mostly
from Kimchi’s writings.” 2 About the year 1594, Laniado,
Laniado. T .. _ . . _ ^ _ . / ’ ’
an Italian rabbi, became noted by the publication of a
commentary on the Pentateuch, which he entitled Delightful Ves¬
sel (mon He also wrote commentaries on Joshua, Judges,
Samuel, and Kings, which he called Precious Vessel (“ip' ex¬
cerpts of which are printed in Frankfurter’s Rabbinical Bible ; also
a commentary on Isaiah, entitled Vessel of Pure Gold (IS ^s). His
expositions consist chiefly of extracts from Rashi, Aben-Ezra, and
Ralbag.3 Abraham Ben Isaac Laniado, another Italian rabbi, also
wrote comments on the Pentateuch, and on several books of the
Hagiographa, which still remain in manuscript.
Elias Levita flourished in the earlier part of the sixteenth century,
fiiias Levita anc^ was one most learned Jewish scholars of any
age. He wrote numerous works on Hebrew grammar
and philology, some of which have an enduring merit. His most
celebrated treatise is entitled rniDttii rniDO, Masoreth ham-Maso-
reth, and is a work of remarkable scholarship, displaying thorough
1 This lexicon was published at Yenice in 1548, but is now very rare.
2 Introduction to the Old Testament, vol. i, pp. 115, 116.
3 His Pentateuch was published at Yenice, 1594; his work on Joshua— Kings,
Venice, 1603 ; and his Isaiah in 1657.
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
627
acquaintance with all questions pertaining to the Hebrew text of the
Old Testament.1 It is, says Holmes, “ an elaborate treatise on the
criticism of the Hebrew Scriptures. Among the many interesting
topics discussed in it, the question of the vowel points attracted
special notice, owing to the author’s assertion of their modern ori¬
gin. He was the first to give prominence to the opinion which has
since been adopted by most of the learned, whether British or for¬
eign, that the Hebrew points were invented about five hundred
years after Christ, by the Masoretic doctors of the school of 'Tibe¬
rias, in order to indicate and fix the genuine pronunciation of the
sacred language.” 2
We have now traced the course of Jewish biblical exegesis down
to the period of the Protestant Reformation. Bevond
. . J The Reforma-
this point it seems unnecessary to follow it as distinct tion a turning
from the general history of biblical interpretation. point'
Since the time of the Buxtorfs, about the beginning of the seven¬
teenth century, Hebrew and rabbinical learning has not been the
sole possession of the Jew. The best Christian exegetes have made
free use of accessible Jewish literature, and regard a thorough ac¬
quaintance with the Hebrew language as essential to the complete
exposition of the Old Testament. On the other hand, the best Jew¬
ish expositors no longer allow themselves to be so trammelled by
Talmudic lore as to regard the storehouse of ancient Halachah and
Hagadah as a great authority. The modern Jewish spirit and its
methods of exegesis are well represented in Moses Men- Moses Men¬
delssohn, who flourished in the latter half of the eight- deissohn.
eenth century. Intimate with Lessing and Nicolai, and familiar
with the ideas of the great philosophers of his time, he nevertheless
held to the principles of Maimonides, with whose work, the Moreh
Nebuchim, he early became fascinated, maintained his ancestral
faith, and acquired the title of both the Jewish Socrates and the
Jewish Plato. He published a Hebrew commentary on Ecclesi¬
astes, and an elaborate introduction to the Pentateuch, in which he
discussed various topics connected with biblical interpretation. He
prepared also a German translation of the Pentateuch, which, with
his introduction just named, and with a grammatical and critical
commentary in Hebrew, contributed by several Jewish literati, was
published at Berlin, 1780-83. He was also the author of a German
1 The best edition is that of C. D. Ginsburg: The Masoreth Ha-Masoreth of Elias
Levita, being an Exposition of the Masoretic Notes of the Hebrew Bible; or, the An¬
cient Critical Apparatus of the Old Testament. In Hebrew, with an English Transla¬
tion and Critical and Explanatory Notes. Lond., 1867. 8vo.
2 Kitto’s Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature ; article, Elias Levita.
628
HISTORY OF
version of the Psalms and of the Song of Songs.1 “ Nothing,” says
Pick, “ could have more powerfully affected the orientalism of his
countrymen than these efforts of Mendelssohn for biblical criticism
from a modern Platonic standpoint. The new medium of vision
brought new insight; critical inquiry took the place of fanaticism;
the divergences of Semitic and European thought proved not so
irreconcilable after all. Cabalism and other kindred superstitions
quietly dropped out of sight; the old dialectical barbarism was ex¬
tirpated; the Jews who read his Scriptures in the translation attained
purity of idiom, and with it the power of appreciating the writings
of the great minds of Germany, to whom they had remained stran¬
gers. Ere long the best minds of the race became thoroughly
associated with the intellectual movement of Germany, content to
abandon mystical ambitions and theocratic pretensions, and to find
their Canaan in Europe.”2
It should, however, be observed that the general drift of the
Modem juda most advanced modern Jewish thought is strongly to-
ism rationaiis- ward rationalism. The leading representatives of this
progressive Judaism, as it is often called, are Unitarian
in theology, and make their highest appeal to reason and conscience
in the exposition of the Scriptures. They reject the doctrine of a
.Messiah yet to come, and the future restoration of Israel to Pales¬
tine, with the revival of sacrificial worship. They discard the evi¬
dence of miracles, the doctrine of a resurrection of the body, and
allow no authority to the Talmud above any other collection of
human opinions. Even the so-called conservative Judaism is not
altogether free from the influences of rationalism.
It is apparent, from the foregoing sketch of Jewish and rabbin-
Generai sum- ical interpretation, that a vast library of exegetical the-
mary. ology is extant in the published and unpublished writ¬
ings of that wonderful race to whom the sacred oracles were first
entrusted. Much of this literature is, without doubt, of very little
value, especially the more ancient expositions. Until the ninth and
tenth centuries of our era we find scarcely anything that looks like
a considerate grammatical method of interpretation. But in such
writers as Rashi, Aben-Ezra, Maimonides, and David Kimchi, prom¬
inence is given to the great principles of grammatico-historical
interpretation which are generally accepted by all the leading bibli¬
cal critics and expositors of the present day.
1 Mendelssohn’s complete works were collected and edited by his grandson, G. B.
Mendelssohn, 7 vols. Leipsic, 1843-45.
2 M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical
Literature, article Mendelssohn.
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
629
CHAPTER III.
THE EARLIEST CHRISTIAN EXEGESIS.
We naturally look to the New Testament for the earliest indica¬
tions of the spirit and methods of Christian exegesis. Methods of
The divine Founder of Christianity constantly appealed Christian exe-
to the Scriptures of the Old Testament as to a sacred FiTt h e^New
authority, and declared that they bore testimony to him- Testament,
self (John v, 39; comp. Luke xxiv, 27). With equal emphasis did
he condemn the current Halachic and Hagadic tradition of the
elders, which in some instances nullified the commandments of God
(Matt, xv, 1-9; Mark vii, 1-13). He reproved the Sadducees also
for not understanding the Scriptures and the power of God (Matt,
xxii, 29). The error of the disciples in construing the prophecy of
the coming of Elijah (Mai. iv, 5) to mean a literal return of the
ancient Tishbite — an error which they had received from the scribes
— was exposed by showing that the “spirit and power of Elijah”
(Luke i, 17) had reappeared in John the Baptist (Matt, xi, 14; xvii,
10-13). Paul makes mention of his proficiency in Judaism ( ev r<p
’Ioudattfjtzw), and his excessive zeal for the traditions of his fathers,
for which he was noted before* his conversion (Gal. i, 13, 14); but
after it pleased God to give him the revelation of his grace in Jesus
Christ he denounced “Jewish fables and commandments of men
who turn away from the truth” (Titus i, 14), and also “foolish
questionings and genealogies and strife and fightings (or controver¬
sies) about the law ” (Titus iii, 9). He counselled Timothy to “ turn
away from the profane babblings and oppositions of the falsely
named knowledge” (rrjg xpevdcjvvfiov yvuoeug, 1 Tim. vi, 20), and
warned the Colossians against the spoiling tendencies of “ philoso¬
phy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments
of the world, and not after Christ” (Col. ii, 8; comp. 1 Tim. i, 4;
iv, 7; 2 Tim. ii, 14-16, 23). In these admonitions and warnings
there is a manifest reference to the Jewish Midrashim and the spec¬
ulative tendencies of that age. It was a time of intense mental
activity throughout the Roman world, especially in the more east¬
ern cities where Grevek philosophy and oriental mysticism met and
blended, as in the case of Philo of Alexandria. The Hagadic meth-
endless genealogies and the falsely named knowledge ods condemned,
indicate the beginnings of heretical Gnosticism, already disturbing
630
HISTORY OF
the faith and practice of the Christian Church. From all which it
appears that neither the Hagadic exegesis and ancestral traditions
of the Jews, nor the allegorizing and speculative habit of Hellen¬
ists like Philo, received any encouragement from Christ or his apos¬
tles. Paul’s single instance of allegorizing the history of Hagar
and Sarah was, as we have seen (p. 321), essentially an argumentum
ad hominem , professedly put as a special plea to those “ who de¬
sire to be under law” (Cal. iv, 21). Its exceptional character only
serves to set in stronger light Paul’s constant habit elsewhere of
construing the Scriptures according to the simple and natural im¬
port of the words.
We have already devoted a chapter to the consideration of the
Peter’s use of method in which the sacred writers quote from one an-
scripture. other.1 When the New Testament writers adduce a
passage from the Old Testament they evidently assume that they
are making use of the oracles of God, and nowhere can it be shown
that they put upon the language quoted a farfetched or irrelevant
idea. Thus, for example, Peter, on the day of Pentecost, cites the
latter part of Psalm xvi (8-11) according to the Septuagint, and
then proceeds to comment upon it (Acts ii, 25-31). He shows, from
the obvious import of the language of the psalmist, that it could not
refer to David, but was literally and amply fulfilled in Jesus Christ.
Peter elsewhere speaks of the steadfast prophetic word, which is
like a lamp shining in a dark place, and declares that “ no prophecy
of Scripture is of private interpretation” (2 Peter i, 19-21). It is
God’s revelation, as the context indicates, and not a private essay
on the part of the prophet who uttered it to set forth something of
his own will. Nothing could be further from Peter’s thought than
the notion that the Scripture is a riddle, or that its language may
be used arbitrarily to clothe in attractive guise allegories and specu¬
lations which originate in the will of man.
But though the New Testament exhibits in itself the principles
Allegorizing and methods of a sound and trustworthy exegesis, the
post-apostVnc widely prevalent Hellenistic habit of allegorizing what
age. seemed offensive to philosophic taste carried along with
its strong tide many of the Christian writers of the post-apostolic
age. The Church of this early period was too much engaged in
struggles for life to develop an accurate or scientific interpretation
of Scripture. There was great intellectual activity, and the early
forms of heresy which disturbed the Church developed by contro¬
versy great strength and subtlety of reasoning. But the tone and
style of the earlier writers were apologetical and polemical rather
1 See above, pp. 500-510.
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
631
than exegetical. Harassed by persecution, distracted by occasional
factions, and exposed to manifold dangers, the early Christian prop¬
agandists had no opportunities to cultivate those habits of careful
study which lead to broad generalization and impartial decisions.
In the hurry and pressure of exciting times men take readily what
first comes to hand, or serves an immediate purpose, and it was very
natural that many of the early Christian writers should make use
of methods of Scripture interpretation which were widely prevalent
at the time.
In the writings of the apostolical fathers we observe a frequent,
9 practical, and, in the main, appropriate, use of Scripture. The Apostou-
Tlie Epistle of Clement of Rome contains a great many cal Fathers,
citations from the Old and New Testaments adduced for the legiti¬
mate purpose of strengthening practical counsels and exhortations.
A few of his quotations seem ill adapted to his purpose, but that
might' be said of many later writers whose general principles of
exposition are unexceptionable. Rahab’s scarlet thread clement of
is said to indicate “ that redemption should flow through Rome-
the blood of the Lord to all them that believe and hope in God ”
(chap. xii). The fable of the phoenix is also cited as a veritable
fact to illustrate the doctrine of the resurreciion (chap. xxv). But
aside from these two things there is little in this Clementine epistle
that can fairly be pronounced farfetched or fanciful. The so-called
Second Epistle of Clement, though doubtless of much later date,
and of different authorship, is also free from fanciful interpretations
of Scripture.
The Epistle of Barnabas, which belongs, probably, to the earlier
part of the second century, is full of mystic allegoriz- Bamabas
ing much after the style of Philo. It would seem to
have been written by some Alexandrian Christian who had read the
works of Philo, or who had imbibed the spirit of eclecticism which
was so strong in the great metropolis of Egypt. His knowledge of
the Scriptures was manifestly very imperfect, and his attempts to
spiritualize the statements of the sacred writers sometimes pervert
the sense and produce an absurd exposition. He seems everywhere
anxious to allegorize or explain away those parts of Scripture which
enjoin outward ordinances, or in any way favour Judaism.
The Epistles of Ignatius, the spurious as well as those commonly
received as genuine, contain very little which can prop- Ignatius#
erly be regarded as exposition of the Scriptures. In
the Syriac version, in which three of them exist, and which Cureton
and some others regard as the only genuine productions of Igna¬
tius, there is hardly a citation of Scripture to be found. The
632
HISTORY OF
shorter Greek recension contains numerous citations from the New
Testament, and a few from the Old, which are adduced for the pur¬
pose of enforcing Christian counsel and exhortation. The longer
Greek recension contains more quotations from the Old Testament
and a more abundant use of Scripture generally. The writer ap¬
pears peculiarly anxious that those to whom he wrote should honour
and obey their bishop and the presbytery. For he says to the Ephe¬
sians, “ Your justly renowned presbytery, worthy of God, is fitted as
exactly to the bishop as the strings are to the harp.” He argues
further that “ we ought to receive every one whom the Master of
the house sends to be over his household, as we would do him that •
sent him. It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the
bishop ever as we look upon the Lord himself.” 1 He says, in an¬
other place, that Jesus Christ was “both the Son of man and Son of
God, to the end that ye obey the bishop and the presbytery with
an undivided mind, breaking one and the same bread, which is the
medicine of immortality, and the antidote to prevent us from
dying.”2 He speaks of “being stones of the temple of the Father,
prepared for the building of God the Father, and drawn up on
high by the instrument (fir]xavrig) of Jesus Christ, which is the
cross, making use of the Holy Spirit as a" rope, while your faith
was the means by which you ascended ( avayoryevg vfi&v), and your
love the way which led up to God.”3 He says that Jesus allowed
the ointment to be poured upon his head “ that he might breathe
immortality into, the Church,” 4 and “ he was born and baptized
that by his passion he might purify the water.” 5 Whoever the au¬
thor of these Ignatian epistles, he was a fanciful reasoner and an
unsafe interpreter of the Scriptures.
The Epistle to Diognetus and the Shepherd of Hermas, two most
value of the interesting documents of early Christianity, usually pub-
Apostoiicai Fa- lished with the apostolic fathers, contain no specimens
of Scripture exegesis, and furnish no special help to
trace the history of interpretation. The few remaining fragments
of the writings of Papias indicate that that ancient father was
somewhat of an expositor. Eusebius describes him as “ a man well
skilled in all manner of learning, and well acquainted with the
Scriptures,” but much given to following traditions, and “very lim¬
ited in his comprehension.” G “ The apostolic fathers,” says Pres-
sense,7 “ are to be regarded, not as great writers, but as great
1 Epistle to the Ephesians, chapters iv and vi.
2 Ibid., chap. xx. 3 Ibid., chap. ix. 4 Ibid., chap. xvii. 6 Ibid., chap, xviii.
^Ecclesiastical History, book iii, chap, xxxix.
The Early Years of Christianity, pp. 216, 217. New York, 1871.
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
GC3
historical characters. They preserved the treasure of evangelical
doctrine without themselves fully knowing all it contained. They
esteemed it, nevertheless, more highly than their own life, which
they were ever ready to lay down at the call of duty. The Christ¬
ians of this epoch were martyrs in the holiest of causes, and set a
sacred seal on the claims of God by their faithfulness to the truth,
and on the rights of man by their resistance to all religious tyranny.
The apostolic fathers accept- the great principles laid down in the
previous period by St. Paul and St. John. They never appeal to
the ceremonial law in opposition to the law of Christian liberty.
But since Judseo-Christianity was not so much a simple fact as the
embodiment of a principle and natural tendency of the human
heart, we must not be surprised to meet with it again under new
forms in the orthodox Church at the commencement of the second
century. The divergences of view among these early fathers do
not reach positive opposition. There is no collision of hostile par¬
ties; no stormy discussion is raised; but there are, nevertheless,
very distinct shades of doctrine variously colouring the faith in
Christ which is held in common by all. On the one hand we have
Pauline doctrine represented by Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and
Polycarp. The teaching of Polycarp bears also the distinct impress
of the spirit of St. John, whose immediate disciple he was. On the
other hand, the idealistic symbolism of the Epistle to the Hebrews
is carried to the verge of Gnosticism by the author of the epistle
known as that of Barnabas. Lastly, Papias, and the writer of the
allegory of the Pastor, revive, if not the views, at least the princi¬
ples, of Judaeo-Christianity.” 1
In the writings of Justin, surnamed the Philosopher and the
Martyr, we have the earliest extant apologies of the
. a . i , , ° Justin Martyr.
Christian iaith, and the first elaborate attempt to ex¬
plain the Old Testament Messianic prophecies as fulfilled in the
Christ of the gospels. His two Apologies and his Dialogue with
the Jew Trypho were written about the middle of the second
century, and abound with citations from the Scriptures (generally
from memory). Of many of these citations he gives an expo¬
sition, especially texts which in any way foretell or prefigure the
Christ. In his discourse with Trypho (chap, ii) he informs us
1 The latest and most complete edition of the Apostolic Fathers is that of Geb-
hardt, Harnach, and Zahn, Patrum Apostolicorum Opera, 3 vols. Lps.. 1875-77. In
grateful acknowledgment of the services of that distinguished scholar they published
their work as the third edition of Dressel, whose second edition (Lps., 1863) had been
for some time exhausted, and yet in great demand. An excellent English translation
by Roberts, Donaldson, and Crombie forms the first volume of the Ante-Nicene Christ¬
ian Library. Edinb., 1873.
634
HISTORY OF
of his studies in the philosophy of the Stoics, the Peripatetics, the
Pythagoreans, and the Platonists, and such was his love for philo¬
sophical pursuits that he clung with tenacity to some of the teach¬
ings of Plato as not essentially different from those of Christ. In
his Second Apology he says (chap, xiii): “Each man spoke well in
proportion to the share he had of the spermatic word, seeing what
was related to it. . . . For all the writers were able to see realities
darkly through the sowing of the implanted word that was in
them.” But in Jesus Christ he finds the sum and substance of all
philosophy. “ Our doctrines,” he says (chap, x), “ appear to be
greater than all human teaching ; because Christ, who appeared for
our sakes, became the whole rational being, body and reason and
soul. For whatever either lawgivers or * philosophers uttered well
they elaborated by finding and contemplating some part of the
W ord. But since they did not know the whole of the Word, which
is Christ, they often contradicted themselves.” Justin was an en¬
thusiastic lover and fearless defender of Christianity. He was a
man of great learning, and delighted to use his knowledge of Greek
philosophy to illustrate and enhance the teachings of Scripture.
But his expositions are often fanciful, sometimes almost silly. He
His fanciful is notably wanting in critical discrimination and judg-
expositions. ment, and carries the typical interpretation of the Old
Testament to wild extravagance. In a single chapter of the Dia¬
logue with Trypho (chap, cxxxiv) he says:
The marriages of Jacob were types of that which Christ was about to
accomplish. For it vras not lawful for Jacob to marry two sisters at once.
Being deceived in obtaining the younger he again served seven years.
Now, Leah is your people and the synagogue, but Rachel is our Church.
And for these, and for the servants in both, Christ even now serves. For
while Noah gave to the two sons the seed of the third as servants, now,
on the other hand, Christ has come to restore both the free sons and
the servants among them, conferring the same honour on all of them who
keep his commandments. . . . Jacob served Laban for speckled and many-
spotted sheep, and Christ served, even to the slavery of the cross, for
the various and many-formed races of mankind, acquiring them through
the blood and mystery of the cross. Leah was weak-eyed; for the eyes of
your souls are excessively weak. Rachel stole the gods of Laban, and has
hid them to this day; and we have lost our paternal and material gods.
Jacob was hated for all time by his brother; and we now, and our Lord
himself, are hated by you and by all men, though we are brothers by
nature. Jacob was called Israel; and Israel has been demonstrated to be
the Christ, who is, and is called Jesus.1
1 The best edition of the works of Justin is that of Otto, new edition, in 3 vols.
Jena, 1847-50. An accurate English translation is given in the second volume of the
Ante-Nicene Christian Library. Edinb., 1867.
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
635
In the writings of Theophilus of Antioch and Melito of Sardis
we discover a more formal and systematic exegesis. Theophilus and
Theophilus composed commentaries on the Gospels and Memo,
on the Book of Proverbs, in which, according to Neander,1 we may
observe the germ of that exegetical bent for which the Church of
Antioch became noted. His apologetical work addressed to Au- '
toiycus is of the same general character as the Apologies of Justin
Martyr, and contain some fanciful interpretations of Scripture ; but
he was evidently an earnest student and distinguished expounder
of the sacred writings.2 Melito appears to have been especially
proficient in Old Testament literature, and is said by Eusebius3 to
have written on the Passover, on the Prophets, and on the Revela¬
tion of John. Only a few fragments of his works are now extant.4
But while in the above-named writers we see the dialectic skill
and speculative tendencies of the Churches of Asia Minor and Syria,
in Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, in France, “the Light of
the Western Church,” we observe that Christian thought Irenaeus*
was not inactive, nor without rich products, in the churches of
Western Europe. Irenaeus passed his youth in Asia Minor, and
was a disciple of Polycarp, who had seen and talked with the
Apostle John; but his removal to France, where, in the latter part
of the second century, he became presbyter, and afterward bishop
of the Church at Lyons, has identified him with the Western
Church. Dorner pronounces him “the greatest Church teacher of
the generation before Clement, and especially worthy of notice, be¬
cause he combines in himself the different tendencies in the Church,
and brings them to a harmonious interpenetration. Well versed in
Gnostic and Church literature, fitted by the events of his life to be
a bond of union between oriental and occidental Christianity, he
had a mild, free, and open feeling for what was true in all the often
mutually exclusive parties; and the deeper he penetrated scientifi¬
cally and practically into the essence of Christianity, with so much
firmer a hand could he unite what was cognate and mutually at¬
tractive, and eliminate what was abnormal. No one in the second
century represents as he does the purity and the fulness of the
1 General History of the Christian Religion and Church. Torrey’s translation,
vol. i, p. 674.
2 The second and third books of his Apology contain large extracts from the first
part of Genesis, with comments upon them. See English translation in vol. iii of the
Edinburgh Ante-Nicene Christian Library.
8 Ecclesiastical History, book iv, chap. xxvi.
4 The best collection of these fragments is by Routh, Reliquiae Sacrae. Oxford,
1814. Several have been published in the Journal of Sacred Literature, vols. xv, xvi,
and xvii.
636
HISTORY OF
development witliin the Church ; scarcely any one in the Church of
his time is so highly esteemed as he.” 1
The principal work of Irenseus consists of five books, entitled
Refutation and Subversion of Knowledge Falsely So-called. The
more common title is simply Against Heresies. It is the chief
storehouse of our information respecting the Gnostic heresies of
that age, especially the Yalentinian system. The work is a great
polemico-theological treatise, ably defending the doctrines of the
Church, and, in the last three books, dealing largely with Scripture
exposition. These expositions are sometimes manifestly erroneous,
and occasionally farfetched and strange, but on the whole evince a
thorough acquaintance with the sacred books, and avoid the most
objectionable features of the typical and allegorical interpretations
so prevalent at that time. Irenseus’ early training, and his devo¬
tion to the memory of the apostolic fathers, led him to place over¬
much confidence in tradition and the authority of the Church.2
It is evident from a careful study of the above-named repre-
No settled or sentatives of the earlier patristic exegesis, that during
uniform her- the second century of our era there was no uniform or
the^econdcen- settled method of interpreting the Scriptures. Contro-
tury versy and heresy prevailed even in the midst of bitter
persecution. The converts from heathenism who became apologists
and defenders of the Christian faith had no acquaintance with the
original Hebrew Scriptures, and no occasion or inducement to culti¬
vate a scientific hermeneutics. Jewish exegesis at that time was,
as we have seen, utterly destitute of rational and self-consistent
method. Ebionism and Gnosticism affected to some extent all
Christian thought, and it is not difficult to understand how, under
such circumstances, no well-defined principles of Scripture exposi¬
tion were anywhere recognised or applied. Some of these early
fathers exhibit a commendable moderation and judgment in the use
of Scripture texts, while others load them with fanciful and even
puerile notions of their own.3
1 History of the Development of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ. Eng. trans.,
vol. i, p. 303. Edinb., 1861.
2 The best edition of Iremeus is that of Harvey, S. Irenaei Episeopi Lugdunensis
libri quinque adversus Haereses. 2 vols. Cambridge, 1857. Eng. trans. by Roberts
and Rambaut in vols. v and ix of the Edinburgh Ante-Nicene Christian Library.
3 Hence we should exercise great care in making an appeal to the antiquity of an
opinion or an interpretation. Modern millenarians are wont to claim that Chiliasm
was the universal faith of the early Church. Thus West, in the Pre-Millennial Essays
of the Prophetic Conference, p. 332 (New York, 1879): “Chiliasm was the common
inheritance of both Jewish and Gentile Christians, and passed from the Jewish Christ¬
ian to the Gentile Christian Church precisely in the way the Gospel passed. It was
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
637
CHAPTER IV.
LATER PATRISTIC EXEGESIS.
The history of biblical interpretation was notably influenced after
the beginning of the third century by the famous schools of Alex¬
andria and Antioch. ’We have seen how, long before school of Alex-
the time of Christ, Alexandria had become the home of andria-
letters. Thither learned men from all parts of the world resorted
for studious inquiry. The Asiatic mystic, the Jewish rabbi, and
the Greek and Roman philosopher there came together and inter¬
changed their thoughts. “ Born of this heterogeneous union,” says
Pressense, “the Alexandrian mind rose above all national diver¬
gences; but it also rose above reality, above history, to the cloudy
summits of speculation, and it was utterly wanting in the historic
sense. Strong in its allegorical method, it sported with facts ; and
its philosophical theories were at once aspiring and unsubstantial.”1
A school of sacred learning, such as Eusebius says had been estab¬
lished there from ancient times,2 would of necessity partake largely
of the eclectic and speculative spirit of the place, and we do not
fragrant at Antioch as at Jerusalem, at Rome as at Ephesus. History has no con¬
sensus more unanimous for any doctrine than is the consensus of the apostolic fathers
for the p re-millennial advent of Christ.” This sweeping statement is based upon cx
parte testimony. Hagenbach, on the contrary, avers that in the writings of Clement
of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Tatian, Athenagoras, and Theophilus of Antioch no mil-
lenarian notions appear. See his History of Doctrines, vol. i, p. 215 (New York, 1861).
The fact is that some of these fathers have been quoted in favour of views which
their language will not warrant, and while Papias, Justin, Irenaeus, and some others
are pronounced Chiliasts, an equal or greater number can be cited who give no sanc¬
tion to such views. The first Chiliasts, moreover, sometimes present their views in
connexion with expositions of Scripture which are utterly untenable (as, for example,
Irenaeus Against Heresies, book v, chaps, xxxii-xxxvi). To assume, from the silence
of any of the fathers, that they accepted the Chiliastic views is most absurd, especially
in view of what Eusebius says of Papias (Eccl. History, iii, 39): “He says that there
would be a certain millennium after the resurrection and a corporeal reign of Christ
on this very earth ; which things he appears to have imagined, as if they were author¬
ized by the apostolic narrations, not understanding correctly those matters which they
propounded mystically in their representations. For he was very limited in his com¬
prehension, as is evident from his discourses. Yet he was the cause why most of the
ecclesiastical writers, urging the antiquity of the man, were carried away by a similar
opinion; as, for instance, Irenaeus, or any other that adopted such sentiments.”
1 Early Years of Christianity, p. 266. 2 Ecclesiastical History, book v, chap. x.
638
HISTORY OF
wonder that the great lights of the Alexandrian Church were not¬
ably given to allegorical expositions of the Scriptures.
The first great teacher of the Alexandrian school, whose works
Clemens Alex- have come down to us, is Titus Flavius Clement. He
andrinus. was preceded by Pantsenus, and perhaps Athenagoras,1
and others, who, like Apollos of apostolic times, had profited by
Alexandrian culture, and were “mighty in the Scriptures” (Acts
xviii, 24). Clement was privileged, as he tells us, to travel exten¬
sively, and listen to the teachings of various learned men from
Greece, Syria, Palestine, and the East, but he at last found in
Egypt the man who gave him rest. “ He, the true, the Sicilian bee,
gathering the spoil of the flowers of the prophetic and apostolic
meadow, engendered in the souls of his hearers a deathless element
of knowledge.” 2 The one here referred to is believed to have been
Pantsenus, the distinguished Christian philosopher, whom Clement
succeeded as head of the Alexandrian school, and who, according
to Eusebius, commented, both orally and in writing, on the treas¬
ures of divine truth.3 The disciple was worthy of his master, and
his works evince prodigious learning, and could scarcely have been
composed anywhere but within easy access to the famous library of
the Egyptian metropolis. He is said to have written commentaries
on several books of Scripture, but only three great works of his are
still extant, namely, The Exhortation to the Greeks, The Instructor
(or Pedagogue), and The Miscellanies (Stromata). These three
works form a well-related series, and their great aim is to expose
the follies and absurdities of heathenism, and extol the word and
wisdom of God.
But Clement is a fanciful interpreter. Deeply read in the works
clement a phii- ^ilo Judaeus, he adopted his allegorical methods,
osophicai aiie- He was fascinated with heathen philosophy. “ The
Greek preparatory culture,” he says, “ with philosophy
itself came down from God to men, not with a definite direction,
but in the way in which showers fall down on the good land, and
on the dunghill, and on the houses.” “And by philosophy,” he
adds, “ I do not mean the Stoic, or the Platonic, or the Epicurean,
or the Aristotelian, but whatever has been well said by each of
these sects which teach righteousness along with a science pervaded
by piety — this eclectic whole I call philosophy.” 4 But in the Son
of God, the eternal Word, he recognised and worshipped the sum
1 See Emerson, On the Catechetical School, or Theological Seminary, at Alexandria
in Egypt. American Biblical Repository for Jan., 1834, p. 25.
2 The Miscellanies (Stromata), book i, chap. i.
s Ecclesiastical History, book v, chap. x. 4 Miscellanies, book i, chap. vii.
ft
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION. 639
and substance of all true philosophy, and he holds that the utmost
perfection of the logical faculty is necessary to expound the three¬
fold sense of the law, the mystic, the moral, and the prophetic.1
“For many reasons,” he argues, “the Scriptures hide the sense.
First, that we may become inquisitive, and be ever on the watch
for the discovery of the words of salvation. Then it was not suit¬
able for all to understand, so that they might not receive harm in
consequence of taking in another sense the things declared for sal¬
vation by the Holy Spirit. Wherefore the holy mysteries of the
prophecies are veiled in parables.” 2
Clement was succeeded, at Alexandria, by a pupil even greater
than himself, a man of the purest character, who, while
yet a little child, disclosed a remarkable insight into
the depth and fulness of the Scriptures, and later, by his untiring
devotion to multifarious studies, his unremitting labours by night
and by day, and his indomitable firmness through all temptation and
persecution, acquired the name of Man of Adamant (Adaraantinus).
Notwithstanding his questionable methods of interpretation, and
not infrequent errors, Origen was the greatest biblical critic and
exegete of the ancient Church. Jerome, who violently opposed
some of his views, pronounced him the greatest teacher since the
days of the apostles, “ a man of immortal genius, who understood
logic, geometry, arithmetic, music, grammar, rhetoric, and all the
sects of the philosophers, so that he was resorted to by many stu¬
dents of secular literature whom he received chiefly that he might
embrace the opportunity of instructing them in the faith of Christ.” 3 * * * * 8
He practiced the most rigid asceticism, refused the gifts of admir¬
ing friends and pupils, and after devoting the day to teaching and
1 Miscellanies, book i, chap, xxviii. He does not deny the natural or literal sense,
but often makes use of it, so that he really held to a fourfold sense of Scripture.
2 Ibid., book vi, chap. xv. The following comment on Gen. xxii, 3, 4, will illus¬
trate the mystico-allegorical style in which this writer treats the sacred narratives :
“ Abraham, when he came to the place which God told him of on the third day,
looking up, saw the place afar off. For the first day is that which is constituted by
the sight of good things ; and the second is the soul’s best desire ; on the third the
mind perceives spiritual things, the eyes of the understanding being opened by the
Teacher who rose on the third day. The three days may be the mystery of the seal (bap¬
tism) in which God is really believed. It is, consequently, afar off that he perceives
the place. For the reign of God is hard to attain, which Plato calls the reign of
ideas, having learned from Moses that it was a place which contained all things uni¬
versally. But it is seen by Abraham afar off, rightly, because of his being in the
realms of generation, and he is forthwith initiated by the angel. Thence says the
apostle, ‘ Now we see through a glass, but then face to face,’ by those sole pure and
incorporeal applications of the intellect.” — Ibid., book v, chap. xi.
8 Liber de viris illustribus, chap. liv.
640
HISTORY OP
pious labours, he was wont to spend the greater part of the night
in the study of the Scriptures, and when he slept he chose the bare
floor for his couch. ITe even mutilated himself that he might be a
eunuch for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Such a man would
be likely to fall in with some of the superstitions of his age, and we
do not wonder that he studied Hebrew, not merely for its practical
use in meeting Jewish opponents, but with a notion that it was the
original language of mankind, and was destined to become the uni¬
versal language. Though rejecting personal gifts, there was one
favour offered him by his admiring friend, Ambrose, whom he had
converted from Gnostic heresy, which he felt not at liberty to de¬
cline. This wealthy benefactor furnished Origen with ample means
for the prosecution of his studies and the publication of his works
by placing at his command seven secretaries to write at his dicta¬
tion, and as many copyists, skilled in caligraphv, to transcribe fair
copies of what the others hastily took down from the lips of the
master. In this way Origen was enabled to publish a vast number
of work< — some say over six thousand — most of which are lost.
The first notable attempt at textual criticism may be traced to
Ori gen’s great work, the Ilexapla. His veneration for
TheHexapla. ° . ° , , . . .. r „ . .
the Scriptures led him to ascribe a sort or magical value
to the original text, and he sought to establish it by the widest pos¬
sible collation and comparison. He arranged in six parallel col¬
umns the Hebrew text, a Greek transliteration of the same, the text
of the Septuagint, and the Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and
Theodotion. Some pages, which contained books of which other
Greek versions were extant, were arranged with seven, eight, or
nine columns, according to the number of different versions. On
this immense work, which extended to nearly fifty volumes, he was
engaged for twenty-eight years.1 He also prepared the Tetrapla,
which presented in four columns the Septuagint, and the versions
of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion.
The exegetical works of Origen comprised brief Scholia on the
Origen’s exe- more difficult texts, and also extended commentaries
geticai works. anc] homilies on most of the Bible, considerable por¬
tions of which are still extant. He also composed several apologet-
ical and dogmatical works, the most important of which are the
Treatise against Celsus and the De Principiis. But with all his de¬
votion to the interests of truth, and the enormous magnitude of his
1 The remains of this great work were collected and published in two folio volumes
by Montfaucon, Paris, 1713. Revised edition by Bahrdt, Lpz., 1769-70, 2 vols. 8vo.
It is also published in vols. xv and xvi of Migne’s Greek Patrologiae Cursus Completus,
and in two fine quartos by Field, Oxford, 187o.
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
G41
labours, he was a mystico-allegorical exegete. He followed in the
path of Philo the Jew, and Clement the Christian, and, assuming
that many portions of the Scriptures are unreasonable and absurd
when taken literally, he maintained a threefold sense, the corporeal,
the psychical, and the spiritual.1 But he protests against being
supposed to teach that no history is real, and no law to be literally
observed, because some narratives and laws, literally understood,
are absurd or impossible. “For,” he says, “the passages that are
true in their historical sense are much more numerous than those
which have a purely spiritual signification.” 2
The wonderful influence of Origen is to be explained mainly by
the grandeur of his character, his immense learning, his influence of
fortitude under persecution, and the enthusiasm with ongen.
which he performed everything he took in hand. Driven by perse¬
cution from Alexandria, he resorted to CflBsarea, in Palestine, and
there established a school which for a time surpassed that of the
Egyptian metropolis. The magnetism of his person, and his wide¬
spread fame as an expounder of the Scriptures, attracted great mul¬
titudes to him. His pernicious habit of explaining the sacred
records as the Platonists explained the heathen myths, and his
heretical views touching the pre-existence of souls, a new probation
aftfer death, and some other doctrines, were so far offset by his
pure zeal for God, and his many and great virtues, that he has been
quite generally acknowledged as pre-eminently the father of bibli¬
cal science, and one of the greatest prodigies of learning and indus¬
try among men.3
1 “ The way, as it appears to us,” says Origen, “ in which we ought to deal with the
Scriptures, and extract from them their meaning, is the following, which has been
ascertained from the Scriptures themselves. By Solomon in the Proverbs (chap, xxii,
20, 21) we find some such rule as this enjoined respecting the divine doctrines of
Scripture : ‘ And do thou portray them in a threefold manner, in counsel and knowl¬
edge, to answer words of truth to them who propose them to thee ’ [so Septuagint
and Vulgate]. The individual ought, then, to portray the ideas of Holy Scripture in
a threefold manner upon his own soul ; in order that the sinful man may be edified
by the flesh, as it were, of the Scripture, for so we name the obvious sense ; while he
who has ascended a certain way may be edified by the soul, as it were. The perfect
man, again, and he who resembles those spoken of by the apostle when he says, ‘ we
speak wisdom among them that are perfect, but not the wisdom of the world, nor of
the rulers of this world, who come to naught, but we speak the wisdom of God in a
mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages, unto our glory’
(1 Cor. ii, 6, 7), may be edified by the spiritual law, which has a shadow of good
things to come. For, as man consists of body and soul and spirit, so in the same
way does Scripture, which has been arranged to be given by God for the salvation of
men.” — De Principiis, book iv, chap, i, 11.
aDe Principiis, book iv, chap, i, 11.
8Origen’s works have been printed in many editions. The best is that of the
41
642
HISTORY OF
Origen’s name so far eclipsed that of all other teachers of the
Dionysius of Alexandrian school that there are few others who call
Alexandria. for special mention. Dionysius of Alexandria, one of
Origen’s pupils, acquired some fame as an interpreter. Ilis work
on the Promises, fragments of which are preserved in Eusebius,1
appears to have been written against Nepos, an Egyptian bishop,
who had published a Refutation of the Allegorists, and maintained
therein, by a literal interpretation of John’s Apocalypse, the Chili-
astic doctrine of a temporal reign of Christ on earth. Dionysius
refers to the fact that some, before his time, had rejected the Book
of Revelation as the work of a Cerinthian heretic, but he accepts it
as the work of an inspired man, though not the Apostle John, the
son of Zebedee. He confesses his inability to understand it, but
regards it as containing a hidden and wonderful meaning. Dionys¬
ius wrote also many epistles to leading ecclesiastics of his day, and
commentaries oil Ecclesiastes, Luke, and John, fragments of which
are still extant.2 He appears to have been less given to allegoriz¬
ing than his distinguished master.
Pierius, who took charge of the school at Alexandria at the death
Pierius Peter Dionysius, is said to have given Origen much assist-
Martyr, and ance in his critical labours, and also to have written
Hesj ehius. twelve books of commentary, and other works, all of
which have perished. Peter Martyr, who was bishop of Alexanrlria
at the beginning of the fourth century, is described by Eusebius as
a man of wonderful ability as a teacher of the Christian faith, and
distinguished alike for the excellence of his life and his study of
the sacred Scriptures.3 Hesychius, another Egyptian bishop, who
suffered martyrdom about A. D. 311, is said to have revised the
text of the Septuagint, and to have also published an edition of
the New Testament.
The school of Caesarea, in Palestine, owed its notoriety to Ori-
Schooi of Caes- gen, who made that place his home when driven by per-
area* secution from Alexandria. Many young men there
gathered around him, imbibed his enthusiastic devotion to the study
of the Scriptures, and went out from thence to preach and teach in
Benedictines De la Rue, Paris, 1 733-59, 4 vols. fol. It is reprinted in Migne’s Greek
Patrologioe Cursus Completus, Pari3, 9 vols. English translations of the De Prin-
cipiis, the Contra Celsum, and several of his epistles are given in vols. x and xxiii of
the Edinburgh Ante-Nicene Christian Library.
1 See Ecclesiastical History, book vii, chaps, xxiv, xxv.
2 The extant fragments of Dionysius’ works are published in all the large collections
of the Fathers, and an English translation is given in vol. xx of the Edinburgh Ante-
Nicene Christian Library.
8 Ecclesiastical History, book viii, chap. xiii. ; book ix, chap. vi.
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
643
various cities of the East. The most distinguished disciple of this
school was Gregory, bishop of Neo-Caesarea, in Pontus, commonly
known as Gregory Thaumaturgus. He was the author of a Meta¬
phrase on Ecclesiastes, a work of some merit, which is Gregory Thau-
still extant. His Panegyric on Origen, one of the ear- “aturgus.
liest productions of its kind among Christians, is pronounced by
Dupin one of the finest pieces of rhetoric in all antiquity.1 Later
names, which must ever shed lustre on Caesarea, are those of Pam-
philus and Eusebius. The former of these Neander describes as
“ a man distinguished for his zeal in the cause of piety and science.
He founded at Caesarea an ecclesiastical library, which
contributed in no small degree to the furtherance of PamPhllus-
scientific studies, even in the fourth century. Every friend of sci¬
ence, and in particular every one who was disposed to engage in a
thorough study of the Bible, found in him all possible encourage¬
ment and support. He exerted himself to multiply, to disseminate,
and to correct the copies of the Bible. Many of these copies he
distributed as presents, sometimes to women whom he saw much
occupied in reading the Scriptures. He founded a theological
school in which the study of the sacred writings was made a special
object of attention.” 2
Eusebius of Csesarea, the devoted friend of Pamphilus, on ac¬
count of which he is often called Eusebius Pamphilus, Eusebius of
is distinguished as the father of Church history rather Caesarea,
than as an exegete. His two great apologetical productions, the
Prteparatio Evangelica and the Demonstratio Evangelica, are also
of great value to the Christian scholar. Books iii-x of the last-
named work contain comments on the Messianic prophecies, and
four books of his allegorical interpretations of these prophecies are
extant under the title of Prophetical Eclogues. His Onomasticon
is a valuable topographical and alphabetical index of the names of
places mentioned in the Scriptures. He wrote commentaries on
the Psalms, Proverbs, Canticles, Isaiah, and Daniel, and various
dissertations on the gospels. As an interpreter he followed in the
main the allegorical method of Origen, for whose writings he had
a glowing admiration.3
1 The extant works of Gregory Thaumaturgus have been published in many editions ;
the best is probably that of Migne, in vol. x of his Greek Patrologiae Cursus Com-
pletus. English translation in vol. xx of the Edinburgh Ante-Nicene Christian Library.
2 History of the Christian Religion and Church, Torrey’s translation, volume i,
p. 721.
3 The most complete edition of Eusebius’ works is that of Migne, Greek Patrologi®
Cursus Completus, vols. xix-xxiv.
644
HISTORY OF
The last considerable representative of the Alexandrian school of
Cyril of Alex- theology and exegesis was Cyril, who flourished in the
andria. first haif 0f tfie century. He was noted as a vio¬
lent and ambitious man, and too much given to oppose and perse¬
cute those who differed from him to be a safe and judicious expos¬
itor. Nevertheless, he was a man of extensive learning and of
vigorous mind, and is the author of numerous dogmatical and exe-
getical works which are still extant. His 'Commentaries are upon
the Pentateuch, Isaiah, the twelve Minor Prophets, and the Gospels
of Luke and John. He does not ignore or reject the historical
sense, but is addicted to allegorizing, and illustrates how the Scrip¬
tures may be tortured to mean almost anything. He finds the
mystery of Christ set forth typically or enigmatically throughout
the entire Old Testament, and carries a most extravagant system
of allegorizing even into the narratives of the gospels. For exam¬
ple, the five loaves in John vi, 9, are made to represent the five
books of Moses, as a comparatively coarse food, and the two fishes
denote the finer and more luxurious nourishment of the teachings
of Christ.1
To Antioch, where the disciples were first called Christians (Acts
The School of xi, 26), belongs the honour of introducing a more scien-
Antioch. tific and profitable system of biblical study. About the
beginning of ihe fourth century there was established at this place a
school which opposed to the Alexandrian allegorical exegesis the
historico-critical method of interpretation. We have already made
note of Ignatius and Theophilus, whose labours and influence gave
renown to that Syrian city, but they founded no school, and ac¬
quired no great fame as exegetes. In his spirit and method Julius
Africanus, of Nicopolis (Emmaus) in Palestine, was a forerunner of
the Antiochian school of historical criticism. His brief letter to
Origen, still extant, in which he disputes the authenticity of the
Africanus. apocryphal history of Susannah, exhibits him as more
than a match for the great Alexandrian scholar. For
he displays a critical penetration and judgment, a freedom from
ecclesiastical traditions, and an incisive way of stating his views
which make his short epistle more weighty and convincing than
the elaborate reply of Origen.2 His letter to Aristides on the
genealogies of Matthew and Luke, a part of wThich is preserved in
1 The most convenient edition of Cyril’s works is that of Migne, Greek Patrologim
Cursus Completus, vols. lxviii-lxxvii. An English translation of his Commentary on
Luke, by R. P. Smith, was published at Oxford, 1859.
2 See Africanus’ letter and Origen’s reply translated into English in vol. x of the
Edinburgh Ante-Nicene Christian Library.
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
645
.Eusebius (see above, p. 522), is another evidence of his exegetical
skill. He was also the author of a valuable chronological work
entitled Pentabiblos, from its being arranged in five sections, of
which only fragments remain. Some affirm that he wrote a com¬
mentary on the New Testament, but this is doubtful.1
About A. D. 290 there flourished at Antioch a distinguished
presbyter, named Dorotheus, of whom Eusebius says:
lie was a man of fine taste in sacred literature, and Dorotheus.
was much devoted to the study of the Hebrew language, so that he
read the Hebrew Scriptures with great facility. He was also of a
very liberal mind, and not unacquainted with the preparatory
studies pursued among the Greeks, but in other respects a eunuch
by nature, having been such from his birth; so that the emperor, on
this account, as if it were a great miracle, received him into his
house and family, and honoured him with an appointment over the
purple dye establishment of Tyre. Him we have heard in the
Church expounding the Scriptures with great judgment.” 2 It does
not appear that Dorotheus left any writings, but his oral teaching
imparted the true critical spirit to those who heard him, and pre¬
pared the way for the formal opening of the theological school at
Antioch.
The real founder of the school of Antioch was Lucian, who was
bora at Samosata, in Syria, but in early life removed to
Edessa, where he laid the foundation of his thorough
biblical scholarship under the training of Macarius, an eminent
teacher of that place. He afterward removed to Antioch, where
he was ordained a presbyter, and acquired great fame as a critical
student and expounder of the Holy Scriptures. His stricter meth¬
ods put a check to the allegorical and mystical interpretations so
popular at the time, and which had received great strength and
currency by the influence of Origen. Jerome speaks of him as a
most eloquent man, so laborious in his critical study of the Scrip¬
tures that copies edited by him were long afterward known as
Lucianean.3 He elsewhere says that while Hesychius’ edition of
the Septuagint was used in Egypt, that of Lucian was preferred by
all the Church from Constantinople to Antioch.4 Unfortunately,
none of the works of Lucian, with the exception of a few frag¬
ments, have come down to us.
It is worthy of note that Arius and Eusebius of Nicomedia
1 See Lardner, Credibility of the Gospel History, vol. ii, p. 434. London, 1788.
3 Ecclesiastical History, book vii, chap, xxxii.
8 De viris illustribus, chap, lxxvii.
4 Praefatio in Librum Paralipomenon.
646
HISTORY OF
received their training in the school of Lucian. The principles
Arian leaders of free grammatical interpretation inculcated by the
the Antiochian learne(l presbyter of Antioch encouraged an indepen -
school. dent and fearless tendency which was liable to run into
extremes. Neander thoughtfully observes : “ In cases where this
direction was not accompanied with a general intuition of biblical
ideas vitalized by Christian experience, and this general intuition
had not made plain the true relation of the particular to the general
in the expressions of holy writ, it might tend, by laying too great
stress on particulars, and giving them undue prominence, to pro¬
mote narrow views of the truths, of faith. This was the case with
Arius, in whom a tendency to narrow conceptions of the under¬
standing, exclusive of the intuitive faculty, predominated.”1
Lucian suffered martyrdom about A. D. 312, and does not appear
to have been succeeded by any one of equal ability or
fame. But we find the sharp opposition of the Antio¬
chian school to that of Origen represented in Eustathius, who be¬
came bishop of Antioch in A. D. 325. He was distinguished both
for secular learning and for thorough acquaintance with the Scrip¬
tures. He was a voluminous writer, but of all his works only one, a
treatise on the Witch of Endor, is now known to be extant. This
treatise was written against Origen, who maintained that the witch
had really brought up the spirit of the prophet Samuel. Eustathius
opposed this view with great learning and acuteness, and argued
that Samuel did not appear at all, but that the whole transaction
was a work of deception, perpetrated through the agency of Satan.2
Eusebius, commonly known as bishop of Emesa, was for some
Eusebius of time identified with the church and school of Antioch.
Emesa. He was descended from a noble family of Edessa, and
from childhood was carefully instructed in the Scriptures and in
Greek literature. He died at Antioch about A. D. 360. Accord¬
ing to Jerome he maintained the historical sense of Scripture and
was the author of Homilies on the Gospels, and a commentary on
the Epistle to the Galatians;3 but only a few fragments of his
writings remain.
More noted and influential than any of the above-named teachers
Diodorus at ^ntl0C^ was Diodorus, who afterward became bishop-
of Tarsus. Socrates, the Church historian, speaks of him
as president of a monastery, and the author of “ many treatises, in
1 History of the Christian Religion and Church, vol: ii, p. 361.
2 This treatise of Eustathius, and fragments of his and other works, are given in
Migne’s Greek Patrologiae Cursus Completus, vol. xviii, pp. 614— 794.
8 De viris illustribus, chap. xci.
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
647
which he limited his expositions to the literal sense of Scripture,
without attempting to explain that which was mystical.” 1 Accord¬
ing to Jerome he was a distinguished presbyter of Antioch, and
wrote commentaries and other books, in which he imitated the
manner of Eusebius of Emesa, but could not equal him in eloquence
because of his ignorance of secular literature.2 He is said to have
written commentaries on all the books of the Old Testament, and
upon the four Gospels, the Acts, and the Epistle of John.3 It ap¬
pears from numerous brief notices of him in the ancient writers
that he was held in the highest esteem, and was chosen by the
Council of Constantinople (A. D. 381) to take charge of the admin¬
istration of the churches of the East, without, however, infringing
on the prerogatives of the bishop of Antioch.4 He set himself
firmly against the allegorical method of interpretation, and instilled
his principles in the minds of many pupils, some of whom became
very famous in the Church. Theodoret says of him: “The wise
and courageous Diodorus resembled a large and limpid stream,
which furnishes plentiful supplies of water to those who dwell on
its banks, and which, at the same time, engulfs adversaries. He
despised the advantages of high birth, and underwent the severest
exertions in defense of the faith.” 6
The two most distinguished disciples of Diodorus were Theodore
of Mopsuestia, and John Chrysostom of Constantinople. Theodore of
Both of them studied philosophy and rhetoric in the Mopsuestia.
school of the celebrated sophist Libanius, the friend of the Emperor
Julian. Theodore was made a presbyter at Antioch, but rapidly
acquired reputation, and was made bishop of Mopsuestia in Cilicia,
about A. D. 390. His long life and incessant labour as a Christian
teacher, the extent of his learning, the vigour and acuteness of his
intellect, and the force of his personal character, won for him the
title of Master of the Orient. He was a prolific author, and com¬
posed commentaries on various books of Scripture, of which only
his exposition of the Minor Prophets has been preserved intact until
the present time. His commentaries on Philippians, Colossians,
and Thessalonians are preserved in a Latin version.6 He was an
1 Eecl. Hist., book vi, chap. iii. 2 De viris illustribus, chap. cxix.
3 So stated by Theodore the Reader, as cited in Suidas’ Lexicon (Kuster’s ed., vol. i,
p. 593. Cambr., 1705), under the name Diodorus. Fragments of the commentaries of
Diodorus are given in vol. xxxiii of Migne’s Greek Patrologiae Cursus Completus.
4 Socrates, Eccl. Hist., book v, chap. viii.
5 Theodoret, Eccl. Hist., book iv, chap. xxv.
6 Theodore’s Commentary on the Minor Prophets was published by Mai, in vol. vii
of his Patrum Nova Bibliotheca (Rome, 1854), and by Wegner (Berol., 1834). Frag¬
ments of his other works are given by Fritzsche, Theod. Mops., in N. Test. Comm.
648
HISTORY OF
independent critic, and a straightforward, sober, historical inter¬
preter. He had no sympathy with the mystical methods of the
Alexandrian school, and repudiated their extravagant notions of
inspiration ; but he went to an opposite extreme of denying the in¬
spiration of many portions of the Scriptures, and furnished ration¬
alistic specimens of exposition quite barren and unsatisfactory.
Nevertheless the Syrian Nestorians regarded him as the greatest of
exegetes. His doctrines on the subjects of Christology and anthro¬
pology were severely condemned after his decease, especially be¬
cause the Nestorians appealed to them as identical with their own.
While Theodore represented the more independent and rational¬
istic spirit of the Antiochian school, Chrysostom exliib-
Chrysostom. mor^ conservative and practical tendency. The
tender devotion of a pious Christian mother, the rhetorical polish
acquired in the school of Libanius, and the assiduous study of the
Scriptures at the monastery of the learned Diodorus, were all to¬
gether admirably adapted to develop the profound exegete and the
eloquent preacher of the word of God. “Through a rich inward
experience,” says Neander, “he lived into the understanding of the
Holy Scriptures ; and a prudent method of interpretation, on logical
and grammatical principles, kept him in the right track in deriving
the spirit from the letter of the sacred volume. His profound and
simple, yet fruitful homiletic method of treating the Scriptures,
show to what extent he was indebted to both, and how, in his case,
both co-operated together.” 1
Chrysostom wrote more than six hundred homilies on the Scrip¬
tures. They consist of expository discourses on Genesis, the Psalms,
and most of the New Testament. Those on the Gospel of Matthew
and the Pauline epistles are specially valuable, and such modern
exegetes as Tholuck and Alford have enriched their pages by
numerous quotations from this father. The least valuable of his
expository discourses are those upon the prophets, only a few of
which remain. His ignorance of Hebrew, and his failure to appre¬
hend the spirit of the Old Testament prophets, are apparent. The
homilies on the Psalms, however, though without critical merit,
furnish a rich banquet, for Chrysostom’s deep religious experience
brought him into complete sympathy with the psalmist. Although
his credulous nature yielded to many superstitions of his age, and
his pious feeling inclined him to asceticism and the self-mortifica-
(Turici, 1847), and Pitra, Spicil. Solesm. (Par., 1854). See also Sieffert, Theod. Mops.
Y. T. sobre interpretandi vindex, (Regiom., 1827), and Kihn, Theod. Mops, und J.
Africanus als Exegeten (Freib., 1880).
1 History of the Christian Religion and Church, vol. ii, p. 693.
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
C49
tions of monastic life, John Chrysostom is unquestionably the great¬
est commentator among the early fathers of the Church. Theodore
of Mopsuestia may have been more sharply critical, Origen was
more encyclopaedic in his learning, and others were more original
and profound in apprehending some of the doctrines of the Christ¬
ian faith, but he surpassed them all in the general good judgment
which appears in his expositions, in the richness of his sugges¬
tions, and the practical value of what he said or wrote. He is
the greatest ornament and noblest representative of the exegetical
school of Antioch.1
Isidore of Pelusium, who flourished in the early part of the fifth
century, was a disciple of Chrysostom. He has left Isidore of Pe_
numerous epistles, which are largely occupied with in- lusium.
terpretations of the Scriptures, and treat nearly all the great theo¬
logical questions of his time. His method of exposition is like that
of Chrysostom, sober, practical, and in the main free from alle¬
gorizing. His style of interpretation may appropriately be called
historico-theological, and his expositions evince sound judgment,
piety, and learning.2
In this connexion we should also notice the works of Theodoret,
who was trained at the monastery near Antioch, where
he abode for twenty years, devoting himself to theolog¬
ical studies. The teachings of Diodorus, Theodore, and Chrysos¬
tom, who were identified with this same monastery, exerted great
influence over the mind of Theodoret, and he followed substantially
their system of biblical interpretation. In his Preface to the Psalms
he says: “When I happened upon various commentaries, and found
some expositors pursuing allegories with great superabundance,
others adapting prophecy to certain histories so as to produce an
interpretation accommodated to the Jews rather than to the nurse¬
lings of faith, I considered it the part of a wise man to avoid the
excess of .both, and to connect now with ancient histories whatever
things belonged to them.” Most of his remaining works are exposi¬
tory, but often mixed with that which is apologetic and controver¬
sial.3 They cover most of the books of the Old Testament, and the
epistles of Paul. In treating the historical books his method is to
1 The best edition of Chrysostom’s works is that of Montfaucon, Greek and Latin,
13 yoIs., Paris, 1718-38. Reprinted 1834-39, and also in Migne’s Greek Patrology,
vols. xlvii-lxiv. An English translation of many of the Homilies is given in the Ox¬
ford Library of the Fathers, 1842 -53.
2 The best edition of Isidore’s works is probably that of Migne, Greek Patrologiae
Cursus Completus, vol. lxxviii. Paris, 1860.
3 Comp. Rosenmiiller, Historia Interpretationis Librorum Sacrorum, vol. iv, pp.
35-142.
650
HISTORY OF
state and discuss the questions which arise on difficult passages,
but on other books his discussions assume the form of a continuous
commentary. TIis learning was not great, and he borrowed much
from the homilies of Chrysostom, but the real merits of his biblical
expositions, from whatever source he gathered them, are univer¬
sally acknowledged. Ernesti recommends his commentaries, es]3e-
cially those on the Pauline epistles, as peculiarly adapted to the
wants of students who are commencing a course of exegetical study.
His comments are usually short, clear, and concise, evince a sober
and discriminating judgment, and are to be reckoned among the
best specimens of ancient exegesis.1 2
The churches of Syria early developed into two main divisions,
Schools of Edes- those of the eastern and the western provinces. As
sa and Nisibis. Antioch was the chief center of the western cities, so
were Edessa and Nisibis of the more eastern, and when, after the
days of Chrysostom and Theodoret, the school of Antioch declined,
those chief centres of Christian activity in Mesopotamia became
more famous as literary towns and seats of exegetical learning.
The appearance of the Syriac version of the New Testament as
early as the middle of the second century, and the Diatessaron of
Tatian, indicates the interest of the Syrian mind in the study of the
Scriptures. Lucian, the founder of the Antiochian school, received
his early training in the Scriptures from Macarius of Edessa. The
Ignatian epistles appear also to have exerted great influence in
Eastern Syria, and they were early translated into the Syriac
tongue. “ The school of Eastern Syria,” says Dorner, “ was distin¬
guished by its vivid fancy, by its religious spirit, at once fiery and
practical, by fervour, and, in part, depth of thought. It exhibited,
also, a tendency to the impassioned style and too gorgeous imagery
of the East, to mysticism and asceticism. . . . The Church of
Western Syria displayed, at an early period, that sober, judicious,
and critical spirit for which it became renowned, and by which it
was especially distinguished from the third to the fifth century.
The eastern school inclined to theosophy, and thus had a certain
affinity with the religious systems which prevailed in the East; the
western, on the other hand, took its stand on the firm basis of ex¬
perience and history. In a word, the contrast between the two
divisions of the Syrian Church bore a not inconsiderable resem¬
blance to that which exists between the Lutheran and Reformed
Confessions in Germany.” 3
1 The best edition of Theodoret’s works is that of Schulze and Nosselt, 5 vols., Halle,
1769-74. See also Migne’s Greek Patrologiae Cursus Completus, vols. lxxx-lxxxiv.
2 History of the Development of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ, div. ii, vol. i, p. 29.
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
651
Ephraem Syrus.
One of the greatest fathers of the Syrian Church was Ephraem,
commonly called Ephraem Syrus, who flourished at
Edessa about A. D. 370. He spent most of his life in
writing and preaching, and was a vigorous opponent of Arianism.
His learning and piety were the admiration of his contemporaries,
and he was often designated as the prophet of the Syrians. He was
a voluminous writer, and has left numerous commentaries, homilies,
and poems. Many of his exegetical discourses and polemical and
practical homilies are written in poetic form. His commentaries on
the historical books of the Old Testament and the Book of Job are
extant in Syriac, and those of the Pauline epistles in an Armenian
translation. It is doubtful whether he understood or used the
Greek language. His method of exposition is mainly that of the
allegorists, his style is brilliant and glowing, often running into
bombast, and his interpretations are often fanciful, farfetched, and
extravagant.1
The school of Nisibis maintained itself longer than that of Edes¬
sa, and continued until the ninth century. The Canon Barsumas and
of Nisibis prescribed a three years’ course of exegetical Ibas-
study in the Old and New Testaments. Barsumas, who was ejected
from the school of Edessa, became bishoj> of Nisibis in A. I). 435,
and founded there the theological seminary which served to main¬
tain and propagate Nestorianism in various countries of the East.
The works of Diodorus of Tarsus, and Theodore of Mopsuestia,
translated into Syriac by Ibas, contributed much toward the
cultivation of biblical and theological study throughout Eastern
Syria.
Several eminent fathers of the fourth century, who belong to no
particular school of exegesis, but became noted in the
dogmatic controversies of the early Church, deserve a
passing notice in the history of biblical interpretation. Pre-emi¬
nent among these is Athanasius of Alexandria, the father of
orthodoxy, and the great defender of the faith against the Arian
heresy. His polemic purposes unfitted him for calm and thought¬
ful exposition, and yet, despite his Alexandrian training, he rarely
falls into allegorizing, and his scriptural arguments
generally proceed upon correct principles of interpre¬
tation. Epiphanius, the patriarch of heresy hunters, has left some
Athanasius.
Epiphanius.
1 The best edition of the works of Ephraem Sjrus is that of Assemanni in six vols.,
Rome, 1732-46. Nine of the metrical homilies and thirty-five of the Syriac hymns
have been translated into English by Burgess, Select Metrical Hymns and Homilies of
Ephraem Syrus, London, 1853. See also Lengerke, De Ephraemi Syrfarte hermeneu-
tiea. Konigsb., 1831.
652
HISTORY OF
Basil.
writings which are especially useful in preserving various opinions
of his time. But he was deficient in good judgment, and fell into
frequent blqnders and self-contradictions. He is said to have been
familiar with five languages, Hebrew, Syriac, Egyptian, Greek, and
Latin.
Basil the Great has left numerous homilies on various parts of
Scripture, which show that he was a man of extensive
learning and a sound interpreter. He condemns those
who do not accept the obvious sense of what is written, but seek
after occult meanings, and make themselves wiser than the Holy
Spirit by introducing into the sacred writings fancies and fictions
The two Greg- of their own. Gregory of Nyssa, a younger brother of
ories. Basil, composed several doctrinal, exegetical, and prac¬
tical treatises, and pursued essentially the same line of exposition.
He was a diffuse writer, and his style is often heavy and weari¬
some to the reader. Gregory of Nazianzum was one of the most
polished writers of the fourth century, and ranks with Basil and
Chrysostom, but he is celebrated as the theologian rather than the
interpreter.
Ulphilas, the apostle and bishop of the Goths, was master of the
uiphiias and Greek an(1 Hebrew- languages, and propagated among
Cyril of Jeru- his people the love of letters as well as the Gospel of
Christ. He constructed a Mceso-Gothic alphabet, and
translated into that language the entire Bible except the Books of
Kings. Cyril of Jerusalem was the author of eighteen books of
sermons entitled Cateclieses. These discourses abound with quota¬
tions from the Scriptures, and help to illustrate the life and disci¬
pline of the Church at Jerusalem during the fourth century.
Andreas, bishop of Caesarea, in Cappadocia, in the latter part of
Andreas and the fifth century wrote a commentary in Greek upon
Arethas. the Book 0f Revelation. It is somewhat miscellaneous
in its character, and claims to make use of what others had written,
referring by name to Irenaeus, ITippolytus, Methodius, Epiphanius,
Gregory of Nazianzum, and Cyril of Alexandria. The writer
maintains a threefold sense, the literal, the tropological, and the
anagogical or mystical, which last he makes most prominent in his
expositions. Arethas, a later bishop of this same place, wrote a
still more copious commentary on the Apocalypse, and followed
the same style and system of interpretation as Andreas. These
works are valuable for their antiquity, but not for intrinsic merit.
Before passing to notice the fathers of the Western
Church, we should consider for a moment the critical as¬
sault made by Porphyry upon the allegorical system of interpretation,
Porphyry.
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
653
and his theory of the prophecies of Daniel. In the latter part
of the third century this celebrated Neo-Platonic philosopher wrote
a work in fifteen books against the Christians. Only a few frag¬
ments of this treatise have been preserved, from which it appears
that in the first book Porphyry sought to expose the discrepancies
of the Bible; in the third book he attacked the allegorical method
of exegesis so prevalent at the time, and urged that writings, which
must be handled so unhistorically in order to maintain a satisfac¬
tory meaning, cannot be worthy of belief. In the twelfth and
thirteenth books he attacked the prophetic portions of the Book of
Daniel, maintaining that Scriptures purporting to foretell future
events with such minuteness of detail must have been written after
the events which they portray. He discovered what he regarded
as evidence that the writer lived in the reign of Antiochus Epiph-
anes, and detailed events to a definite period of his reign, beyond
which he is vague and uncertain. The critical sharpness of this
heathen philosopher is apparent from these few indications of his
argument, and it will be seen how his theory of explaining the
predictions of Daniel is virtually identical with the rationalistic
criticism of the nineteenth century.
The fathers of the Western Church were, as a class, much in¬
ferior to those of the Eastern in their expositions of the
Scriptures. One chief reason for this fact was their HlPPoiytas.
comparative ignorance of the original languages of the Bible. A
notable exception is that of Hippolytus, bishop of Portus, at the
mouth of the Tiber, near Rome. It is doubtful whether he should
be claimed more by the West than the East, for he was a disciple
of Irenaeus, and a friend and admirer of Origen, and, according to
Baronins, a disciple of Clement of Alexandria. Nevertheless, it is
quite certain that he spent the greater portion of his life in Rome
and its vicinity. His great work, recently discovered, on the Refu¬
tation of all Heresies, contains numerous expositions of different
passages of Scripture, and shows that he was an extreme allegorist.
He appears to have written commentaries on most of the Bible,
and numerous fragments remain. His exegetical method is substan¬
tially that of Philo, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, and in
some things, if possible, even more extravagant. Nevertheless, his
writings are of great value as exhibiting the heresies and disputes
of his time, and some of his Scripture expositions are thoughtful
and suggestive.1
1 The extant works of Hippolytus have been published in many editions, the best
of which is, perhaps, that of Lagarde, Lps., 1858. An English translation is given in
vols. vi and ix of the Edinburgh Ante-Nicene Christian Library.
654
HISTORY OF
Tertullian.
Cyprian.
Tertullian occupies a conspicuous place among the Latin fathers,
and is the most ancient whose works are now extant. He
flourished at the beginning of the third century, and is
chiefly distinguished for his vigorous and violent writings against
the Gnostics. So fat as his works deal with the exposition of
the Scriptures, he belongs to the historico-theological school, and
he lays great stress upon the regula Jidei , rule of faith, supposed
to have been transmitted from the apostles to all the true
Churches of Christ.1 He allows allegorical interpretation in the
treatment of prophecies, and in a few cases adopts it where the
passage cannot reasonably admit of any such method of exposition;
but he generally maintains the literal and most obvious sense of
Scripture.2
Cyprian, who was bishop of Carthage from A. D. 248 to 258, was
very simple and practical in his expositions of Scrip¬
ture. He followed the general method of Tertullian,
whom he called the Master, and for whose writings he ever showed
a special fondness. He is pre-eminently famous for his maintain-
ance of the authority of the Church, and prelatical doctrines which
placed the unity of the Church in the episcopate, and involved the
legitimate primacy of the bishop of Home. Like other fathers
who have left numerous writings, he incidentally treats many pas¬
sages of the Scriptures, and, like Tertullian, is to be classed with
the historico-theological interpreters.3
There is extant, under the name of Victorinus, bishop of Petau
victorinus (Petavium in Pannonia), a commentary on the Apoca¬
lypse. Victorinus lived near the close of the third cen¬
tury, and, according to Jerome, wrote commentaries on most of the
books of the Old Testament. Besides his work on the Apocalypse
we have also a fragment of his treatise on the Creation of the
World. The writer is exceedingly fanciful in most of his exposi¬
tions, and spiritualizes after the manner of the allegorists generally.
Here and there an excellent thought is presented, and there are
1 “ It is impossible,” says Davidson, “ to calculate the mischief which this appeal
to ecclesiastical authority occasioned in after times. The sufficiency of the holy
word was virtually impugned and denied ; the overseers of the Church claimed to be
authorized interpreters by virtue of a commission handed down from the apostles ;
and doctrines were promulgated, not by the aid of the Scriptures, but by the aid of a
tradition in the Church.” — Sacred Hermeneutics, p. 111.
2 The best edition of Tertullian is that of Oehler, 3 vols., Lps., 1853. English trans¬
lation in four vols. (vii, xi, xv, and xviii) of the Edinburgh Ante-Nicene Christian
Library.
3 An English translation of Cyprian’s writings is given in vols. viii and xiii of the
Edinburgh Ante-Nicene Christian Library.
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
655
some sensible explanations of single passages, but, as a whole, the
work is rambling and full of arbitrary conceptions. It is especially
interesting as being one of the oldest specimens of continuous com¬
mentary.1
About the middle of the fourth century flourished Hilary of
Poitiers, in France, a man “ who was distinguished
. . ° Hilary
among the doctrinal writers of the Western Church for
a profoundness of intellect and a freedom of spirit peculiarly his
own.” 2 So forcibly did he maintain the Athanasian faith against
its enemies that he was called the Hammer of the Arians. In his
doctrinal writings he is often discriminating and able in his use of
appropriate proof-texts, but as an exegete he belongs to the school
of Origen, whose works had much influence over both his thought
and his style, and whose commentary on Job he is said to have
translated into Latin. His commentaries on the Psalms and
the Gospel of Matthew are modelled after the tone and spirit of
the great Alexandrian scholar, and abound with allegorical fan-
' cies.3
Ambrose, bishop of Milan (A. D. 374-397), was even a more fan¬
ciful and lawless allegorizer than either Origen or
^ ^ Ambrose
Hilary. He treats the historical sense as of no account,
and extols the hidden mystical meaning of the sacred oracles, some
parts of which he aflirms have several different significations. He
sees in Noah’s ark a mystical representation of the human body.
The four kings of the East mentioned Gen. xiv, 1, denote the
allurements of the flesh and the world; the five kings of the plain
of Sodom (ver. 8) are the five senses of the body, and Abraham
represents Christ as the conqueror of fleshly appetites. In the nar¬
rative of our Lord’s entry into Jerusalem the ass which was tied
represents mankind as bound in sin, and the loosing of the same is
the redemption of Christ. The placing of their garments under
Christ showed that the apostles were ready to Sacrifice their own
works for the honour of preaching the Gospel. The strewing of
the branches by the way denotes the cutting off of unfruitful
works!4
1 An English translation of Victorinus’ Commentary on the Apocalypse, and also
of the fragment on the Creation, is given in vol. xviii of the Edinburgh Ante-Nicene
Christian Library.
2 Neander, History of the Christian Religion and Church, vol. ii, p. 396.
3 Hilary’s works have been published in many editions, the best is, perhaps, that of
the Benedictines, Paris, 1693, fol.
4 The writings of Ambrose are more numerous than useful. The best edition is
that of the Benedictines in 2 vols., fol., Paris, 1686-90. The exegetical treatises are
in the first volume.
656
HISTORY OF
Jerome.
In the latter part of the fourth and the earlier part of the fifth
century there flourished, contemporaneously, the great¬
est biblical scholar, the greatest theologian, and the
most distinguished heretic, of the ancient Western Church. These
were Jerome, Augustine, and Felagius. Jerome was born at Stri-
don, on the borders of Pannonia, but early in life removed to Rome,
where he diligently prosecuted his studies under the best masters.
He afterward travelled through Gaul, and transcribed Hilary’s com¬
mentary on the Psalms. About A. D. 372 he visited the East, pass¬
ing through the most interesting provinces of Asia Minor, and
pausing for a time at Antioch in Syria. Here he was prostrated by
a severe fever, and in a dream received strong condemnation for
his devotion to the heathen classics, which he thereupon vowed to
renounce forever. He betook himself to monastic life, and thought
to crucify his taste for Roman literature by the study of Hebrew.
He afterward visited Constantinople, and pursued his studies, espe¬
cially in Greek, under Gregory of Nazianzum. Here he translated
Eusebius’ Chronicle, and the commentaries of Origen on Jeremiah'
and Ezekiel. About A. D. 386 he settled in Bethlehem of Judaea,
and there, in monkish seclusion and assiduous study, spent the rest
of his life. He wrote commentaries upon most of the books of the
Bible, revised the old Latin version, and made a new translation of
the Old Testament from the original Hebrew text. His generation
was not competent to appreciate these literary labours, and not a
few regarded it as an impious presumption to assume that the Sep-
tuagint version could be improved by an appeal to the Hebrew.
That seemed like preferring Barabbas to Jesus. Nevertheless, the
Vulgate speedily took rank with the great versions of the Bible,
and became the authorized translation used in the Western Church.
It is more faithful to the Hebrew than the Septuagint, and was
probably made with the help of Origen’s Hexapla, which was then
accessible in the library of Caesarea.
“As a commentator,” writes Osgood, “Jerome deserves less hon-
Os^ood on Je- our ^ian as a translator, so hasty his comments gen-
romeasacom- erally are, and so frequently consisting of fragments
gathered from previous writers. His merit however is —
and this was by no means a common one in his day — that he gener¬
ally aims to give the literal sense of the passages in question. He
read apparently all that had been written by the leading interpreters
before him, and then wrote his own commentaries in great haste
without stopping to distinguish his own views from those of the
authorities consulted. He dashed through a thousand lines of the
text in a single day, and went through the Gospel of Matthew in a
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
657
fortnight. He sometimes yielded to the allegorical methods of
interpretation, and showed frequent traces of the influence of his
study of Origen. Yet he seems not to have inclined to this method
so much from his own taste as from the habit of his time. And if,
of the four doctors of the Church particularized by some writers, to
Gregory belongs excellence in tropology, to Ambrose in allegory,
to Augustine in anagoge, to Jerome is given the palm in the literal
and grammatical sense. . . . Rich and elegant as his style frequent¬
ly is, he does not appear to have had very good taste as a critic.
He had not that delicate appreciation of an author’s meaning that
enables one to seize hold of the main idea or sentiment, and through
this interpret the language and illustrations. He could not repro¬
duce the thoughts of the prophets and poets of the Old Testament
in his own mind, and throw himself into their position. Their
poetic figures he sometimes treats as logical propositions, and finds
grave dogmas in casual illustrations.” 1
In learning and general culture Jerome was much superior to
Augustine, but in depth and penetration, in originality
of genius and power of thought, Augustine, bishop of Au»llstme-
Hippo, in Africa, was by far the greatest man of his age. If it be
any evidence of greatness for one mind to shape and direct the
theological studies and speculations of more than a thousand years,
and after all the enlightenment of modern times to maintain his
hold upon men of the deepest piety and the highest intellectual
power, then must it be conceded that few if any Christian writers
of all the ages have equalled Augustine. But of his doctrines and
his rank as a theologian it is not in our way to speak. Only as an
interpreter of Scripture do we here consider him, and as such we
cannot in justice award him a place correspondent with his theo¬
logical fame. His conceptions of divine truth were comprehensive
and profound, but having no knowledge of Hebrew and a very im¬
perfect acquaintance with Greek, he was incapacitated for thorough
and independent study of the sacred books. He was dependent on
the current faulty Latin version, and not a few of his theological
arguments are built upon an erroneous interpretation of the Scrip¬
ture text. In his work on Christian Doctrine he lays down a num¬
ber of very sensible rules for the exposition of the Bible, but in
1 Jerome and his Times; article in the Bibliotheca Sacra for Feb., 1848, pp. 138,
139. The works of Jerome have been published in many forms; best edition, by Val-
larsi and Maffei in 11 vols., Verona, 1734-42; reprinted, with some revision, Venice,
1766-71. See also Migne’s Latin Patrologise Cursus Completus, vols. xxii-xxx, Paris,
1845, 1846. The best treatise on Jerome is that of Zbckler, Hieronymus, sein Leben
und Werken aus seinem Schriften dargestellt, Gotha, 1865.
42
658
HISTORY QF
practice he forsakes his own hermeneutical principles, and often
runs into excessive allegorizing. He allows four different kinds of
interpretation, the historical, the aetiological, the analogical, and
the allegorical, but he treats these methods as traditional, and gives
them no extended or uniform application. His commentaries on
Genesis and Job are of little value. His exposition of the Psalms
contains many rich thoughts, together with much that is vague and
mystical. The treatise in four books on the Consensus of the
Evangelists is one of the best of the ancient attempts to construct
a Gospel harmony, but his Evangelical Inquiries (Quaestiones Evan-
gelicae) are full of fanciful interpretation and mystic allegorizing.
His best expositions are of those passages on which his own rich
experience and profound acquaintance with the operations of the
human heart enabled him to comment with1 surpassing beauty and
great practical force. His exegetical treatises are the least valuable
of his multifarious writings, but through all his works are scattered
many brilliant and precious gems of thought.1
Pelagius, supposed to have been a British monk, went to Rome
about the beginning of the fifth century, and there pub-
Peiagius. RgReR a commentary on the Epistles of Paul, in which he
set forth the heretical opinions which have ever since been associ¬
ated with his name. His theological views were shared and ear¬
nestly defended by his disciple and friend Coelestius, who accom¬
panied him to Carthage. Pelagius appears to have been a man of
blameless moral character, and of considerable learning and force.
Besides his comments on the Pauline epistles he wrote numerous
treatises which exerted much influence on the theological thinking
of that period. His defective views of the nature of sin and the
work of divine grace in salvation disqualified him both as a profound
exegete and a theologian. But his comments are specimens of brief
and simple exposition, and avoid the habit of allegorizing.2
Tichonius, a contemporary of Jerome and Augustine, de¬
serves notice for making perhaps the first formal attempt
to lay down a number of hermeneutical rules for the interpretation
1 Augustine’s works have been printed in very many editions, the latest of which is
that of Migne, in fifteen vols. Paris, 1842. More sumptuous is the Benedictine edi¬
tion, in eleven folio vols. Venice, 1729-35. An English translation of his exposition
of the Psalms and Gospels is given in the Oxford Library of the Fathers, and his
commentary on John, the work on Christian Doctrine, the Enchiridion, and numerous
other treatises are published in Clark’s Foreign Theological Library, Edinburgh.
2 The extant works of Pelagius are usually printed with the writings of Jerome, and
numerous extracts are found in Augustine’s controversial treatises; but they have
all suffered more or less mutilation. Comp. Rosenmuller, Historia Interpretationis
Librorum Sacrorum, vol. iii, pp. 503-537.
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
G5D
of the Scriptures. His work is entitled Seven Rules for investigat¬
ing and discovering the sense of the Scriptures. He propounds his
canons as so many keys to unlock, and lamps to illuminate, the secrets
of the law ; but his rules consist mainly of rambling observations
on particular passages of Scripture, and are of very little value.1 2 *
Vineentius, a monk and priest, who was educated at a cloister in
the island of Lerins in Provence, deserves a passing notice Vincent of
on account of his Commonitoriura, a work designed to Lerins.
show that Scripture and the tradition of the Catholic Church are
both necessary in order to establish the true doctrines of faith.
That exposition which is believed everywhere, always, and by all
(quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est) is the
only true one. His treatise is a textbook of ecclesiastico-traditional
interpretation, but it is of no value except with those who hold
Church tradition and authority above reason and conscience.
Cassiodorus, commonly called the Senator, flourished during the
first half of the sixth century, and was noted for his de¬
votion to biblical literature. He was the author of a Cassioti01 “5-
work entitled De Institutione Divinarum Literarum, and also of
comments on the Psalms and the apostolical epistles. His exposi¬
tions are partly in the form of a paraphrase, and usually set forth
the literal sense of the Scripture ; but they show no great penetra¬
tion, and are without much interest or valued
Gregory the Great, who became pope of Rome A. H. 595, was a
very voluminous writer, and, besides many other works, Grefrory th0
composed a commentary (called Moralia) on the Book of Great.
Job, and homilies on Ezekiel and the Gospels. Although he laid,
the foundations of the papacy and the Romish mediaeval system,
he disclaimed the title of universal bishop, and exerted himself to
promote the study of the Scriptures among the clergy and the laity.
When Bishop Natalis would fain excuse himself from such study
on the ground of physical infirmity, Gregory referred him to Rom.
xv, 4, and urged that the more we are bowed down with affliction
or burdened with the troubles of the times, the more we need the
comfort of the Scriptures. But this distinguished prelate was too
thoroughly imbued with the superstitions of his age to be a sound
interpreter. His learning and critical judgment were notably in¬
ferior to his piety and devotion to the Church. As an interpreter
he maintains the historical sense, but also the allegorical and the
1 The writings of Tichonius may be found in the sixth volume of the Maxima Bib¬
liotheca Veterum Patrum. Lyons, 1677.
2 Cassiodorus’ works were published by Dom Caret in two vols. fob, Rouen, 1679, and
Venice, 1729; also in Migne’s Latin Patrologiie Cursus Completus, vols. lxix-lxxi.
660
HISTORY OF
spiritual, or moral. His work on Job is full of mystical allegoriz¬
ing; his homilies on Ezekiel are of much the same cast, but those
on the Gospels are of a more practical character.1
As we review the history of patristic exegesis we notice the
General char Progress two opposite tendencies operative from the
acter of patris- beginning of the Christian era. The one was a specu-
tic exegesis. lative spirit, a habit of allegorizing, begotten of asso¬
ciated Judaism and Platonism; it received a mighty impulse in the
Alexandrian school, and has maintained more or less influence even
to the present day. The other tendency was of a more practical
character. It originated with our Lord and his apostles, who con¬
demned the fanciful speculations and Hagadic traditions of their
time, and set the example of a sober and rational interpretation of
the Scriptures. It was the distinguishing feature of the school of
Antioch, and exhibits some of its best results in the exegetical
works of Chrysostom and Theodoret. But this more grammatical
and logical method of interpretation attained no complete develop¬
ment among the ancient fathers. The prevalence of superstitions,
the blind credulity of the masses, the strong tendencies to asceti¬
cism and mysticism, and the defective knowledge of the original
languages of the Bible, gave, in the main, an advantage to the alle-
gorists, and rendered a thorough grammatico-historical interpreta¬
tion impossible-.2 Hence, we are not to look to the ancient fathers
for models of exegesis. Their writings contain numerous imper¬
ishable gems of thought, and exhibit great intellectual acumen and
logical subtlety, but as interpreters of the sacred volume they have
been far surpassed by the moderns. Notwithstanding his extrava¬
gant allegorizing, Origen will ever be prized for his great learning
and remarkable service in biblical criticism, and the works of Chry¬
sostom, Theodoret, and Jerome, despite their frequent errors, will
ever hold high rank in biblical literature; but the time is passed
when an appeal to the opinions of the early fathers lias any consid¬
erable weight with men of learning.
1 The best edition of Gregory’s works is the Benedictine, in four vols. folio, Paris,
1705. They were also published in seventeen vols. at Venice, 1768-76, and in five vols.
in Migne’s Latin Patrologiae Cursus Completus (vols. lxxv-lxxix). An English trans¬
lation of the Moralia on Job is given in four vols. in the Oxford Library of the Fathers.
2 The allegorizing tendency could, without much difficulty, accommodate itself wholly
to the form of the tradition in the dominant Church, and explain the Bible in con¬
formity therewith. The more unprejudiced, grammatical, and logical interpretation
of the Bible would tend, on the other hand, to purge the existing system of Church
doctrine of the various foreign elements which had found entrance through the Church
tradition, guided as that tradition had been by no clear consciousness of the truth. —
Reander, History of the Christian Religion and Church, vol. ii, p. 351.
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
6G1
CHAPTER Y.
EXEGESIS OF THE MIDDLE AGES.
During the period extending from Gregory the Great to the time
of Luther (A. D. 600 to A. D. 1500), the true exegeti-
cal spirit could scarcely be expected to maintain itself, getes during
or produce works of great merit. The monasteries he- thls penod*
came the principal seats of learning, and the treasures of theolog¬
ical literature gradually found their way to them as to so many
asylums. The Scriptures were everywhere regarded as a holy
treasure, and many were wont to consult them for oracular re¬
sponses. If one was about to embark in some dangerous enterprise,
he would open the Bible and regard the first words which met his
eye as a special revelation to himself/ Superstition and ignorance
effectually hindered the progress of critical inquiry. Nevertheless,
a number of distinguished writers appeared during the Middle Ages
who devoted themselves to the study of the sacred books, and have
left works in the department of biblical exegesis which deserve at¬
tention.
To this period belong the so-called catenists, or compilers of ex¬
positions from the more ancient fathers. It was not an The early Cat_
age of original research, but of imitation and appropri- enists.
ation of the treasures of the past. Among the earliest of these
compilers was Procopius of Gaza, who wrote commentaries on the
Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, the Books of Kings, Chroni¬
cles, Proverbs, Canticles, and Isaiah.2 To this class of expositors
belong also Andreas and Arethas, already mentioned, and Olympb
odorus, who lived in the early part of the sixth century, and wrote
comments on Job, Ecclesiastes, and Jeremiah. The more distin¬
guished catenists appeared at a later date.
The Venerable Bede, one of the most eminent fathers of the
English Church, flourished about the beginning of the eighth
1 When Clovis was about to make war on the West Goths in Spain he prayed God
that he would reveal to him, as he entered the Church of St. Martin, a fortunate issue
of the war; and as at that moment the words of Psa. xviii, 40, 41, were chanted, the
king regarded this as an infallible oracle by which he was assured of the victory. He,
in fact, obtained the victory, which confirmed him in his belief. — Neander, History of
the Christian Religion and Church, vol. iii, p. 129.
2 Given in vol. lxxxvii of Migne’s Greek Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Paris, 1860.
662
HISTORY OF
century. He spent Ills life in the monasteries of Jarrow and Wear-
The Venerable mouth, and made himself familiar with all the learning of
Bede. jRg age. His commentaries extend over the entire New
Testament and a large portion of the Old. They are, in substance,
compilations from the works of Augustine, Basil, and Ambrose,
and properly belong to the class called catenae. Later catenists,
however, placed him among the fathers, and transcribed his com¬
ments as if they had been original. His expositions are mainly
allegorical, for he closely followed the methods of those from whom
he took the principal part of his comments.1 2
Bede was the educator of many other Church teachers. During'
the latter part of his life he was surrounded by admir-
York. disciples whom he had inspired with a love for
study. Egbert, archbishop of York, was one of his pupils, and,
after the master’s death, he sought to carry forward his work, and
superintended a school at York where biblical studies were culti¬
vated. In this school Flaccus Alcuin received his training, and
learned the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew languages. He afterward
became headmaster of the school, and made it so famous that
scholars came from distant places to enjoy its advan¬
tages. In a journey to Rome about A. D. 780, having
made the acquaintance of Charlemagne, he was retained in the
service of that ruler for the rest of his life. He gave direction to
the studies of the monks in many places, and founded the so-called
Palatine Schools in the houses of the princes, which long rivalled
the cloister establishments. The palace of Charlemagne himself
was turned into an academy in which the family and counsellors of
the king became the devoted pupils of Alcuin. About A. D. 796
he took charge of the abbey of St. Martin of Tours, which he suc¬
ceeded in making the most famous school of his age. The learning
and attainments of this man were certainly extraordinary for the
time in which he lived. Besides numerous treatises on theology,
philosophy, philology, and rhetoric, and several poems, he compiled
questions and answers on Genesis, an exposition of the penitential
psalms, and a commentary on the Gospel of John. He belongs,
however, to the class of catenists. His questions on Genesis are
taken mainly from Jerome and Gregory, and his comments on John
are avowedly compiled from the works of Augustine, Ambrose,
Gregory, and Bede.3
1 The works of Bede, nearly complete, were published in vols. xc-xcv of Migne’s
Latin Patrologise Cursus Completus (Paris, 1850), and an edition of his historical and
theological works by Giles, London, 1842, 1843, 12 vols.
2 Alcuin’s works were published at Paris, 1617, in one vol. fol., and at Ratisbon,
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
663
Rhabanus Maurus was a disciple of Alcuin at Tours, and after¬
ward became head of the school at Fulda, where his Rhabanus Mau_
fame as a most learned and successful teacher attracted rus-
to him many scholars. Among these were not a few of the sons of
the nobility. He was afterward made archbishop of Mentz. His
commentaries cover all the books of the Bible, and have obtained
considerable celebrity. But they are full of mystic allegorizing,
and advocate a fourfold sense, namely, the historical, the allegor¬
ical, the anagogical, and the tropological (see above, pp. 164, 165).
He also is essentially a catenist, and appropriates the larger part
of his comments from the Greek and Latin fathers. His writings
served to bring into circulation many excellent things from the
more ancient times, and to diffuse a warm, practical, Christian
spirit.1
Hay mo, teacher at Fulda, abbot of Hirschfeld, and finally bishop
of Halberstadt, was another disciple of Alcuin, and is
noted for the compilation of Glosses upon the Psalms,
Canticles, and the Prophets, and homilies upon the Gospels and
Epistles. The Glosses are short annotations of no great value,
and were taken mainly from the fathers.2 “A work, however,
wrhich had greater influence than other writings of this kind on the
following centuries, not so much on account of its intrinsic con¬
tents as on account of the very convenient manner in which it
adapted itself to the ordinary theological wants of all such as were
not profound scholars, was the short explanatory re- waiafrid stra-
marks which Waiafrid Strabo, abbot of Reichenau, fol- b0-
lowing, for the most, his teacher, Rhabanus Maurus, compiled on
the sacred Scriptures, and which formed the common exegetical
manual of the Middle Ages known as the Glossa Ordinaria. A
man of far greater theological importance, as an expositor of Scrip¬
ture, was Christian Druthmar, in the ninth century, who had re¬
ceived his education in the French monastery of Corbie.
. . . , __ Druthmar.
He first gave lectures on the exposition ot the JNew
Testament to the young monks in the monasteries of Stavelo and
Malmedy, in the diocese of Liege. In this way he was led to write
out, as he had been invited to do, an elaborate commentary on the
Gospel of Matthew; and it is singular to observe, in an interpreter
1777, in 2 vols. fol. Comp. Rosenmiiller, Historia Interpretationis Librorum Sacro-
rum, vol. v, pp. 109-122.
1 The works of Rhabanus Maurus were published at Cologne, in 1627, in 6 vols. fol. ;
also in Migne’s Latin Patrologiae Cursus Completus, vols. cvii-cxii. Comp. Rosen-
miiller, Historia Interpretationis, vol. v, pp. 123-134.
2 Haymo’s writings are published in vols. cxvi— cxviii of Migne’s Latin Patrologi®
Cursus Completus.
664
HISTORY OF
of Scripture belonging to these times, the revival of the hermeneu¬
tical principles of the Antiochian school, which direction in favour
of the grammatical interpretation of the Bible no doubt acquired
for him the surname of Grammaticus. He declared himself, in the
preface to this commentary, opposed to a onesided, arbitrary, mys¬
tical exposition of the Bible, and maintains that the spiritual ex¬
planation of Scripture presupposes the exploration of the literal
historical sense.” 1
'Other distinguished catenists of the ninth century were Claudius,
Catenistsofthe bishop of Turin, sometimes called the first Protestant
ninth century, reformer because of his vigorous opposition to numer¬
ous Romish superstitions; Sedulius and Floras Magister, who pre¬
pared Collectanea on all the epistles of Paul ; Remigius, whose
compilations extend over the Psalms and eleven of the Minor
Prophets ; Smaragdus, who wrote on the Gospels and Epistles ; and
Paschasius Radbert, who is especially famous for originating the
doctrine of transubstantiation.2
The tenth century was an age of barbarism and almost universal
ignorance, but near its close we meet with the most dis¬
tinguished of all the catenists, the Byzantine bishop,
(Ecumenius, whose elaborate commentaries, compiled mainly from
Chrysostom, cover all the books of the New Testament. Though
taking the expositions of others, and stringing them together with¬
out any system or logical order, he occasionally expresses his own
independent judgment. Inasmuch as he uses Chrysostom’s works
as his principal source, his method of interpretation is the literal or
grammatical, but he also quotes the comments of the two Gregories,
Cyril of Jerusalem, Basil, Isidore, Methodius, Photius, Athanasius,
and Theodoret.3
Among the catenists of the eleventh century Theophylact of
Bulgaria is the most celebrated. He wrote commen-
Theophyiact. tar*eg on jiosea> jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, the
Gospels, the Acts, and the Epistles. His notes on the prophets are
of little value, but those on the New Testament have always been
held in high estimation.4 Although the works of Chrysostom are
1 Neander, History of Christian Religion and Church, vol. iii, pp. 458, 459. Druth-
mar’s Commentary on Matthew was published at Strasburg, 1514, and also with that
on Luke and John in the xvth vol. of the Maxima Bibliotheca Patrum (Lyons, 162'7).
Strabo’s Glossa Ordinaria have been published in many editions. Latest ed. vols. cxiii
and cxiv of Migne’s Latin Patrology.
8 The works of most of these catenists may be found in Migne’s Latin Patrologim
Cursus Completus ; but some are still in manuscript.
3 The commentaries of (Ecumenius were published in two vols. folio, Paris, 1631.
4 Comp. Rosenmiiller, Hist Interpretationis Librorum Sacrorum, vol. iv, pp. 286-316.
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
665
the chief source of his extracts, he occasionally expresses his dissent
from his views, and shows more independence than most of the
catenists. “The circumstance of the extracts being taken from
Chrysostom,” says Davidson, “is rather a commendation than
otherwise ; for thus the time of the student who desires to know
the sentiments of the Constantinopolitan archbishop is saved. The
interpretations are here exhibited in shorter compass than in the
voluminous works of the original author. We would therefore
recommend the commentaries of Theophylact to the biblical stu¬
dent. They may be fairly classed with those of (Ecumenius. Both
follow the grammatical method of exposition ; both are founded
upon Chrysostom more than any or all of the other fathers. We
prefer the simplicity and brevity of Theophylact to the profuseness
of (Ecumenius.”1
Other exegetical compilers of the eleventh century are Lanfranc,
who wrote glosses on the Pauline epistles, taken mainly Lanfranc Ni-
from Ambrose and Augustine; and Nicetas, arch- cetas, andwu-
bishop of Heraclea, in Thrace, the author of a useful leiam’
commentary on Job, taken mostly from Olympiodorus, but also
making free use of many other writers.2 Mention should also be
mnde of Willeram, abbot of Ebersberg, in Bavaria, who was much
devoted to the study of the Scriptures, and composed a double
paraphrase of Solomon’s Song, one in Latin hexameter verse, an¬
other in prose in the language of the ancient Franks.
In the early part of the twelfth century flourished Rupert, abbot
of Deutz, probably the most prolific writer of his time, Rupert, Peter
and greatly devoted to the study of the Scriptures, S^uszfg*
His exegetical works are an abridgment of Greg- abenus.
ory’s Moralia on Job, and commentaries on the Song of Solomon,
Ecclesiastes, the Minor Prophets, the Gospel of John, and the
Apocalypse.3 About this time appeared also Peter Lombard, the
noted scholastic divine, who wrote a commentary on the Psalms,
and Collectanea on the Pauline epistles, gathered chiefly from the
works of Jerome, Ambrose, and Augustine.4 More valuable are
the compilations of Euthymius Zigabenus, a Greek monk of Con¬
stantinople, on the Psalms, the Gospels, and the Epistles. They
1 Sacred Hermeneutics, p. 170. The finest edition of Theophylact is that published
at Venice, 1754-63, 4 vols. fol.
2 Lanfranc’s works were edited by Giles, 2 vols. 8vo, Oxford, 1844, 1845, and
Nicetas’ Catena on Job appeared in London, 1637.
3 Rupert’s complete works were published at Venice, 1751, 4 vols. fol.
4 His complete works have been published in many editions; the first, at Nurem¬
berg, 1478.
C66
HISTORY OF
are taken mostly from the works of Chrysostom, and follow his
grammatical method of exposition.1
It was in the twelfth century that the Abbot Joachim put forth
his Exposition of the Apocalypse, in which he maintains
Joachim. the divine government of the world is arranged in
three great aions, or dispensational periods: the first, extending
from the creation until the incarnation of Christ, is the reign of the
Father; the second, is the reign of the Son of God, and is denoted by
the twelve hundred and sixty days mentioned in Rev. xi, 3; xii, 6,
each day representing a year; the third, is the reign of the Holy
Spirit, to begin in the year A. D. 1260, during which mankind,
having been carnal under the Father, half carnal and half spiritual
under the Son, will become altogether spiritual. lie also wrote a
work on the Harmony of the Old and New Testaments, and there
are commentaries bearing his name on most of the Prophets.2
Thomas Aquinas, tlie distinguished theologian known as “the
Thomas Aqui- Angelical Doctor,” has left among his voluminous writ-
nas. ings expositions of Job, the Psalms, Canticles, Esaiah,
Jeremiah, and the Gospel of John. More important than any of
these, however, is his Catena Aurea on the Four Evangelists and
the Epistles of Paul, which presents in an abridged form the com¬
ments of Augustine, Bede, Alcuin, Haymo, Rhabanus Maurus, and
others. The name of each author from whom he quotes is given at
the end of the quotation. His works are marked with numerous
subtleties peculiar to the schoolmen, and are of little value in the
interpretation of the Scriptures. In Aquinas the scholastic phi¬
losophy of the Middle Ages reached its culmination, but exegesis
made no real advance.3 Associated with him in scholastic theology
was his contemporary, Bonaventura, called “the Seraphic
Doctor.” He also wrote expositions of various books of
Scripture, as the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations of Jeremiah,
and portions of the Gospels, but his exegesis abounds with farfetched
and worthless speculations, and in some instances assumes a seven¬
fold sense, the historical, the allegorical, the mystical, the moral,
the symbolical, the synecdocliical, and the hyperbolical. The first
four of these senses are supposed to be indicated by the four feet
1 Ills works are given in Migne’s Greek Patrologiae Ciirsus Completus, vols. cxxx,
cxxxi.
2 Ilis Exposition of the Apocalypse has been often printed, and all his works were
published at Venice in 1519-24, and at Cologne in 1577.
3 The works of Aquinas have been published separately in many editions ; best edi¬
tion of his complete works in 28 vols. 4to. Venice, 1775. An English translation
of his Catena Aurea was published at Oxford in 1845.
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
607
of the table which the psalmist speaks of as prepared for him in
the presence of his enemies (Psa. xxiii, 5), and the whole seven
correspond with the seals of the Apocalypse. His comments on the
Gospels exhibit much better judgment.1
To this same class of extreme mystical interpreters belong the Car¬
dinal Hugo de St. Caro and Albert, bishop of Ratisbon. HugoandAi-
The former of these is chiefly famous for his revision of bert-
the text of the Vulgate, and his concordance of the same, with all
the words of this Latin version arranged in alphabetical order. In
connexion with this work he divided the Bible into chapters, and
also wrote a brief commentary on the whole. This last-named
work maintains a fourfold sense, the literal, the allegorical, the
moral, and the anagogical.2 The expository works of Albert, some¬
times called, on account of his vast erudition, Albert the Great, con¬
sist of commentaries on the Psalms, Lamentations, the twelve Minor
Prophets, the four Gospels, and the Apocalypse. His annotations
are full of mystical allegorizing and scholastic speculation.3
Nicholas de Lyra flourished at the beginning of the fourteenth
century. In addition to the usual studies of his age he Nicholas de
acquired a thorough knowledge of Hebrew, a rare ac- Lyfa-
complishment for a Christian, and his great learning and useful
writings secured him the friendship of the most illustrious men of
his times, and the title of the “plain and useful doctor.” His
greatest work is entitled Continual Comments, or Brief Annotations
on the whole Bible (Postillae perpetuae, seu brevia commentaria in
universa Biblia), and exhibits a great advance upon most of the
exegesis of the Middle Ages. For although he recognises a four¬
fold sense, as shown in the well-known lines,
Litera gesta docet, quid credas allegoria,
Moralis quid agas, quo tendas anagogia,
he gives decided preference to the literal sense, and in his exposi¬
tions shows comparatively little regard for any other. He frankly
acknowledges his indebtedness to the learned Hebrew exegetes,
1 Bonaventura’s works were published in 13 vols. 4to. Venice, 1751. His ex-
egetical writings are contained in vols. i and ii.
2 Hugo’s Postillse on the whole Bible were published at Basle in 1487, and his Con¬
cordance at Avignon in 1786, 2 vols. 4to. The word postilla, which came to be used
in mediaeval Latin for a running commentary, means literally that which follows after,
and arose from the habit of delivering homilies or expository remarks immediately af¬
ter the reading of the text of Scripture. Thus, too, the comments in a written volume,
which followed after the text, which was placed first, came to be known as postillae.
3 Albert’s exegetical writings are published in vols. vii-x of the edition of all his
werks in 21 vols. fol. Lyons, 1651.
668
HISTORY OF
especially Rabbi Solomon Isaac (Rashi), whose sober methods of in¬
terpretation he generally followed. The influence his writings had
on Luther and other reformers is celebrated in the familiar couplet:
Si Lyra non lvrasset,
Luther us non saltasset.
His comments on the Hew Testament are less valuable than those
on the Old, and follow closely Augustine and Aquinas. He was
ignorant of the Greek language, and based his expositions on the
text of the Vulgate.1 But his great Postillse perpetuse accom¬
plished much in preparing the way of a more thorough grammatical
interpretation of the Bible.2 His exegetical principles were op¬
posed by Paulus Burgensis, who thought that Lyra had given
undue emphasis to the literal sense to the neglect of the other
meanings which he allowed. Lyra was in turn defended by Mat¬
thias Doring, a Franciscan monk. These polemical treatises con¬
tain nothing of value.
Wycliffe.
Along with Lyra we may appropriately mention John Wycliffe,
the first English translator of the Bible, and the “ morn¬
ing star of the Reformation.” His translation of the
entire Scriptures, including also the Apocrypha, was made from the
Vulgate, and is of little or no intrinsic value, having been super¬
seded by more accurate English versions, but its influence at the
time of its appearance, and for a long period afterward, was incal¬
culable. It placed the divine Word within reach of multitudes of
the common people, and set them thinking for themselves.
John Huss, the illustrious Bohemian reformer, who suffered mar-
johnHuss tyrdom Constance in 1415, was greatly influenced in
his views by the writings of Wycliffe. He wrote an
exposition of the Gospels, compiled mostly from the Latin fathers,
and a commentary on the Catholic Epistles, and a portion of First
Corinthians. He follows the grammatical sense, but aims espe¬
cially to bring out the doctrinal and moral lessons of the sacred
John Wessei. text* ^ohn Vessel, whose life extended over the
greater part of the fifteenth century, was another pre¬
cursor of the Reformation, and is worthy of our notice because of
his holding up the Scriptures in that dark age as the final appeal in
matters of faith. So far as his writings deal with expositions of
the Bible he follows the historico-theological method, and main¬
tains the simple and obvious sense of the text. Tradition, how-
1 Comp. Meyer, Geschichte der Schrifterklarung seit der Wiederherstellung der
Wissenschaften, vol. i, pp. 109-120.
2 The best edition of Lyra’s Postill® is that published at Antwerp, 1634, 6 vols. fol.
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
6G9
ever, was not altogether rejected, and he showed great deference
to the rule or analogy of faith.
A very different style of interpretation was that maintained by
John Charlier Gerson, who co-operated with the Coun¬
cil of Constance in the condemnation and martyrdom
of Huss. Gerson, however, laboured earnestly for the reform of the
Church, and thereby provoked the enmity of many leading men of
his time. He wrote a doctrinal exposition of the Seven Penitential
Psalms, and a treatise on the Song of Songs. In other works of
his production he advocates the literal sense of Holy Scripture, but
insists, like a true papist, that this sense is to be determined, not
by the judgment of the individual interpreter, but by the authority
of the Church.
Lorenzo (or Laurentius) Valla, an Italian scholar, was one of the
most celebrated leaders in the revival of literature, Laurentius
and, as Hase concisely puts it, “ first developed the Valla-
laws of a true Latinity, and was induced by the artistic refinement
which it produced decidedly to pronounce the scholastic style ab¬
surd, by the philological knowledge it afforded to explain and
illustrate the original text of the New Testament, and by the his¬
torical criticism it fostered to give judgment against the fables of
the hierarchy.” 1 He wrote, besides other important works, Anno¬
tations on the New Testament, which entitle him to the honour of
being the best interpreter of the fifteenth century. He urged the
importance of understanding the original language of the New
Testament, and showed that the Vulgate text must be amended by
the Greek original. He opposed . the traditional follies of the
Church, refused to allow the scholastic philosophy to control bibli¬
cal exposition, and adhered closely to the grammatical sense. He
was pre-eminently a critic and grammarian, and his system of in¬
terpretation may best be designated as philological.2 He paid little
or no attention to the theological and normal teachings of the Bible,
and while, doubtless, erring in this extreme, his labours and influ¬
ence produced a wholesome and much-needed reaction against
superstition and mystic scholasticism, and in favour of a grammat¬
ical interpretation of the Scriptures.
With the general revival of learning, and the knowledge of
Grecian antiquity which was introduced by Grecian refugees
into Southern and Western Europe, and prepared the way for
1 History of the Christian Church, translated by Blumenthal and Wing, p. 32'7.
New York, 1855.
2 Comp. Meyer, Geschichte der Schrifterkarung seit der Wiederherstellung der Wis-
6enschaften, vol. i, pp. 154-166.
6T0
HISTORY OF
the great Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century, there
Revival Of learn- was a notable breaking away from mediaeval super-
mg. and in- s^itj0T1 an(j an increasing regard for the study of the
the Bible. Holy Scriptures. The Church of Rome was hostile to
these tendencies. “ The opposition of the Church to primitive Chris¬
tianity,” says Hase, “was evinced in the fact that when it per¬
ceived the almost universal use of the sacred writings by parties
hostile to it the hierarchy ventured more and more decidedly to
prevent the perusal of the Scriptures in the language of the people,
and to subject every translation to an ecclesiastical censorship.
In spite of all their efforts, however, after the middle of the
fifteenth century, the wishes of the people and the power of the
press prevailed, and fourteen editions of a translation in the high
German, all founded upon the Vulgate, though none were in the
genuine language of the people, are evidence to the extent to which
it was used.” 1 The first notable specimen of printing with metal
types was an edition of the Latin Vulgate in two folio volumes
(somewhere between 1450 and 1455). The art of printing became
from that time a most important aid in the diffusion of knowledge.
At the beginning of the sixteenth century, but hardly to be
classed with the great reformers, flourished two cele-
jotm Reuchim. krated scholars to whom biblical literature is greatly
indebted, Reuchlin and Erasmus. John Reuchim was recognised
as a leader of the German Humanists, and was particularly famous
for his devotion to the study of Hebrew. He justly deserves the
title of father of Hebrew learning in the Christian Church. He
far surpassed the Jews of his time in the knowledge of their own
language, and published, besides many other works, a treatise on
the Rudiments of Hebrew, another on the Accents and Orthog¬
raphy of the Hebrew Language, and a Grammatical Interpretation
of the Seven Penitential Psalms. He was also acknowledged every¬
where as an authority in Latin and Greek, as well as in Hebrew,
and the most learned men of his age sought his instruction and
counsel. His great services in the cause of biblical learning led
men to say of him, “Jerome is born again.”
Desiderius Erasmus was by his wit, wisdom, culture, and varied
erudition the foremost representative, and, one might
Erasmus. 1 . ,
say, the embodiment, or Humanism. He and Reucnlm
were called the “ Eyes of Germany.” Erasmus became early fas¬
cinated with the ancient classics, translated several Greek authors
into Latin, and edited numerous editions of their works. He also
edited a number of the Greek and Latin fathers. Without any
1 History of the Christian Church, p. 332.
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
671
such deep religious experience and profound convictions as Luther,
and possessed of no such massive intellect as Melanchthon, he was
noted rather for versatility of genius and prodigious literary indus¬
try. Nevertheless, he was one of the most distinguished precur¬
sors of the Reformation, and it was truly said : “ Erasmus laid the
egg; Luther hatched it.” He appears to have turned his attention
to biblical studies about the beginning of the sixteenth century,
and published in 1505 a new edition of Lorenzo Valla’s Remarks
on the New Testament. He edited and published in 1516 the first
edition of the Greek Testament. It was printed in folio, accom¬
panied with an elegant Latin version, and various readings from
several manuscripts, the works of the fathers, and the Vulgate.
This first edition was hastily prepared, precipitated rather than
edited, as Erasmus himself wrote, in order to bring it out in ad¬
vance of Cardinal Ximenes’ Complutensian Polyglot, which did
not appear until 1520. Erasmus afterward wrote and published
Annotations on the New Testament, and also Paraphrases on the
whole New Testament except the Book of Revelation, which were
so highly esteemed in England that it was required of every par¬
ish church to possess a copy of the English translation. These
publications introduced a new era in biblical learning, and went far
toward supplanting the scholasticism of the previous ages by better
methods of theological study.1
Jacques Lef&vre, born at Etaples (about 1455), and commonly
known as Jacobus Faber Stapulensis, can hardly be
ranked with the great Reformers, and yet in fact he was
the father of the Reformation in France. He, however, never left
the Roman Church, and we may properly notice his work in bibli¬
cal literature as belonging to the transition period which prepared
the wav for the triumph of Protestantism. In 1509 he published
his Psalterium Quintuplex, or Psalms, in five versions, accompanied
with short annotations. He afterward published commentaries on
the Psalms, the four Gospels, the Epistles of Paul, and the Catholic
Epistles. But his most important work was his French translation
of the Bible, which was the basis of the later work of Olivetan.
The New Testament part appeared at Paris in 15*23, and the Old
Testament at Antwerp in 1538.
Belonging to this same transition period, and worthy of a passing
notice, we find the Italian, Pico Mirandula (Giovanni Mirandula
Pico della Mirandula), who was learned in Hebrew,
Chaldee, and Arabic, as well as Greek and Latin, and wrote an
1 Erasmus’ works have been printed in many forms. The best edition is that of
Le Clerc, in 11 vols. folio. Leyden, 1703.
672
HISTORY OF
allegorical exposition of Genesis, a work of no value, and a com¬
mentary on the Lord’s Prayer.
Mention should also be made of Sanctes Pagninus, an Italian
Sanctes Pag- monk, distinguished for his knowledge of Latin, Greek,
ninus. Arabic, Chaldee, and Hebrew, especially the last. He
published a Hebrew Lexicon, and an Introduction to the Mystical
Meanings of Holy Scripture, in which he explained parts of Job,
Solomon’s Song, and the seventh chapter of First Corinthians in a
very fanciful and cabalistic manner. His most useful work, how¬
ever, is his new Latin version of the Old and New Testaments, the
first Latin Bible in which the verses of each chapter were num¬
bered as in the original. This translation is remarkable for its
close adherence to the Hebrew idiom. He also composed Institutes
of the Hebrew language, and a catena of Greek and Latin writers
on the Pentateuch.
The beginning of the sixteenth century was notable for the grow-
The first poly- mg interest taken in the study of the ancient tongues,
giots. and the publication (at Genoa in 1516) of the Polyglot
Psalter of Justinian (Giustiniani), a bishop of Corsica, and the great
Complutensian Polyglot, commenced in 1502 under the auspices of
Cardinal Ximenes of Toledo, completed in 1517, and published in
1522. The editors of this work were Demetrius Ducas, a Greek by
birth, and a teacher in the University of Alcala; Anthony of Neb-
rissa, a Spanish theologian, professor in the University of Alcala,
and author of several valuable works; Stunica, noted for skill in
the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin languages; Ferdinand Nonnius, a
distinguished orientalist; Alphonsus, a physician of Alcala, Alphon-
sus Zamora, and Paul Coronel; these last three converted Jews,
who were all proficient in Hebrew and in rabbinical learning.
Most of these editors of the Complutensian Polyglot were also
noted for other works in biblical literature and philology.
The publication of the whole Bible and separate parts of it in
Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Chaldee, Arabic, and Syriac prepared the
way for the more accurate and scientific exposition of the following
centuries. The fetters of ignorance were broken, a widespread love
for literature and learning prevailed, and earnest and devout stu¬
dents of the Scriptures began to cultivate a more thorough and use¬
ful system of interpretation.
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
673
CHAPTER VI.
EXEGESIS OP THE REFORMATION.
With the Reformation of the sixteenth century the mind of Ger¬
many and of other European states broke away from The Reforma-
the ignorance and superstition of the Middle Ages, the ^0fha better
Holy Scriptures were appealed to as the written reve- day.
lation of God, containing all things necessary to salvation, and the
doctrine of justification by faith was magnified against priestly
absolution and the saving meritoriousness of works. The great
commanding mind and leader of this remarkable movement was
Martin Luther, who, in October, 1517, published the famous theses
which were like the voice of a trumpet sounding forth the begin¬
ning of a. better day. Five years later he put forth his German
translation of the New Testament. This was one of the most valu¬
able services of his life, for it gave to his people the holy oracles in
the simple, idiomatic, and racy language of common life, and enabled
them to read for themselves the teachings of Christ and Luther’s Ger-
the apostles. It was followed by successive portions of man Bible*
the Old Testament until, ii> 1534, the whole Bible was completed
and became of incalculable influence in effecting the triumph of
Protestantism. The arduous effort of Luther to make his transla¬
tion of the Bible as accurate as possible went far toward the estab¬
lishing of sound methods of criticism and exegesis. His helps in
this great enterprise consisted of Erasmus’ edition of the New
Testament, the Septuagint, the Vulgate, a few of the Latin fathers,
and an imperfect knowledge of the Hebrew. He also received val¬
uable assistance from Melanchthon, Bugenhagen, Jonas, Cruciger,
and several learned rabbis. He spent twelve of the best years of
his life upon this monumental work. Portions of the original auto¬
graph are still preserved in the royal library of Berlin, and show
with what anxious care he sought to make the version as faithful
as possible. Sometimes three or four different forms His exegeticai
of expression were written down before he determined works-
which one to adopt. Luther’s commentary on the Galatians, which
has been translated into English, and published in many editions,
was characterized by himself as being very “ plentiful in words.”
It is an elaborate treatise adapted for use as public lectures and devo¬
tional reading, and is particularly notable for its ample exposition
43
074
HISTORY OF
of the doctrine of justification by faith. Luther also prepared
notes on Genesis, the Psalms, the Sermon on the Mount, the Gospel
of John, and other portions of the New Testament.1 His knowl¬
edge of Hebrew and Greek was limited, and he sometimes mistook
the meaning of the sacred writer, but his religious intuitions and
deep devotional spirit enabled him generally to apprehend the true
sense of Scripture.
Although Luther occupies the foremost place among the reform¬
ers, he was far surpassed in scholarship and learning by
Meianchthon. p^-pp Melanchthon, in whom he found an indispensable
friend and helper, in temperament and manners the counterpart of
himself. Luther may be compared with Paul, whose bold and fear¬
less spirit he admirably represented; Melanchthon exhibited rather
the tender and loving spirit of John. Melanchthon appears to have
been favoured with every opportunity and means of education
which that age afforded. He was regarded as a prodigy of ancient
learning, especially skilled in the knowledge of Greek, a pupil of
Reuchlin, and a friend of Erasmus, both of whom extolled his
remarkable talents and ripe scholarship. His thorough acquaint¬
ance with the original languages of the Scriptures, his calm judg¬
ment and cautious methods of procedure, qualified him for pre¬
eminence in biblical exegesis. He clearly perceived the Hebraic
character of the New Testament Greek, and showed the importance
of the study of Hebrew even for the exposition of the Christian
Scriptures. As an aid in this line of study he published an edition
of the Septuagint. Luther listened with delight to his expository
lectures on Romans and Corinthians, obtained his manuscript, and
sent it without his knowledge to the printer. On its appearance he
wrote to his modest friend thus characteristically: “It is I who pub¬
lish this commentary of yours, and I send yourself to you. If you
are not satisfied with yourself you do right; it is enough that you
please us. Yours is the fault, if there be any. Why did you not
publish them yourself? Why did you let me ask, command, and
urge you to publish to no purpose ? This is my defence against
you. For I am willing to rob you and to bear the name of a thief.
I fear not your complaints or accusations.” 2
Melanchthon’s exegetical lectures embrace Genesis, the Psalms,
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Daniel, Hag-
gai, Zechariah, and Malachi, of the Old Testament; and Matthew,
1 Luther’s exegetical works in Latin, edited by Elsperger, Schmid, and Irmischer,
were published at Erlangen in 23 vols. 12mo, 1729-44; in German, in vols. xxxiii-lii
of his collected works as edited by Irmischer, 1843-53.
2 Luther’s Brief e, Sendschreiben u. Bedenken, ed. De Wette, ii, 238. Comp, ii, 303.
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
G75
John, Romans, Corinthians, Colossians, Timothy, and Titus, of the
New Testament. Luther’s German Bible was greatly His exegeticai
indebted to the careful revision of Melanchthon, who lectures,
himself translated the books of Maccabees. Although his quiet,
meditative tendencies led him at times into allegorical methods of
exegesis, which he found so generally adopted by the fathers, he
followed in the main the grammatico-historical method, was care¬
ful to trace the connexion and course of thought, and aimed to as¬
certain the mind of the Spirit in the written word. His celebrated
Loci Communes, and his authorship of the Augsburg Confession, en¬
title him to rank with the greatest theologians of any age or nation.1
Similar to Luther and Melanchthon, in their relations to one an¬
other, were the great Swiss reformers, Zwingle and GEco-
lampadius. Zwingle was inferior to Luther in depth Zwinffle‘
and genius, but his superior in humanistic culture and less mys¬
tical in his nature. He wrote scholia on Genesis, Exodus,
Isaiah, and Jeremiah, and also on the Gospels. There is yet pre¬
served in the Zurich library his manuscript copy in Greek of the.
Epistles of Paul, with marginal annotations from Erasmus, Origen,
Ambrose, Jerome, and others. He made extensive use of the Greek
and Roman classics, with which he was very familiar, forming his
style after those ancient models, and bringing them to the illustra¬
tion of various passages of Scripture.2
CEcolampadius was more gentle and meditative than Zwingle,
and his scholarship was more varied and thorough. In
his intellectual habits, love of retirement, and academic (EcoIampadlus'
tastes he greatly resembled Melanchthon. He studied under Reueh-
lin, assisted Erasmus in preparing the second edition of his Greek
Testament, and became distinguished over all the continent for his
vast erudition, and especially for his proficiency in Hebrew and Greek.
He was famous as a preacher and expounder of the Holy Scriptures.
While professor of biblical literature in the University of Basle his
lecture room could not contain the crowds of students and citizens
who thronged to hear him. His exegetical works consist mainly
of commentaries on Genesis, Job, and all the prophetical books,
(3 vols. fol., 1 553-^8), and are of considerable value.
Contemporary with Zwingle and G5colampadius was Conrad
Pellican, for thirty years professor of Hebrew at Zun :?h,
where, in 1527, he published an edition of the Hebrew
Bible with the comments of Aben-Ezra and Salamm. He also
1 Melanchthon’s works, edited by Bretschneider and Bindseil, form 2 vols. of the
Corpus Reformatorum. Halle and Brunswick. 1834-60.
2 His works were published at Zurich in 8 vols., 1828-42.
676
HISTORY OF
published commentaries on all the books of the Old and New Test¬
aments, except Jonah, Zechariah, and the Revelation. His method
is to adhere to the literal sense, amend where needed the Vulgate
text, and make considerable use of rabbinical authors, with whom
he appears to have been quite familiar. Ilis exegetical writings
served a useful purpose during the period of the Reformation.
Sebastian Munster identified himself with the Protestant reform-
Munster and ers> an(^ showed the liveliest sympathy with their prin-
ciarius. ciples, but he kept aloof from all their controversies,
and gave himself up to the quiet study of Hebrew and other oriental
languages. He published an edition of the Hebrew Bible, with a
new Latin version and extensive annotations drawn mainly from
the rabbinical commentaries. He was also the author of numerous
works on Hebrew and Chaldee grammar, and of expositions of sev¬
eral books of the Old Testament, which have been printed in the
Critici Sacri. Isidore Clarius belongs to this same period. His
principal work was an amended edition of the Latin Vulgate,
accompanied by annotations taken largely from Munster. John
Draconites also acquired reputation as a biblical scholar by his
Biblia Pentapla, and commentaries on various portions of the Old
and New Testaments.
Of all the exegetes of the period of the Reformation the first
place must unquestionably be given to John Calvin,
whose learning was ample, whose Latin style surpassed
in purity and elegance that of any writer of his time, and whose
intellect was at once acute and penetrating, profound and compre¬
hensive. His stern views on predestination are too often offensively
prominent, and he at times indulges in harsh words against those
who differ from him in opinion. In textual and philological criti¬
cism he was not equal to Erasmus, Melanchthon, GEcolampadius, or
his intimate friend Beza, and he occasionally falls into notably in¬
correct interpretations of words and phrases ; but as a whole, his
commentaries are justly celebrated for clearness, good sense, and
masterly apprehension of the meaning and spirit of the sacred
writers. With the exception of Judges, Ruth, Kings, Esther, Ezra,
Nehemiah, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Solomon’s Song, and the Apoca¬
lypse, his comments, expository lectures, and homilies extend over
the whole Bible. In his Preface to the Epistle to the Romans he
maintains that the chief excellence of an interpreter is a perspicu¬
ous brevity which does not divert the reader’s thoughts by long
and prolix discussions, but directly lays open the mind of the sacred
writer. His commentaries, accordingly, while not altogether free
from blemishes, exhibit a happy exegetical tact, a ready grasp of
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
677
the more obvious meaning of words, and an admirable regard to
the context, scope, and plan of the author. He seldom quotes from
other commentators, and is conspicuously free from mystical, alle¬
gorical, and forced methods of exposition. His exegesis breathes
everywhere — especially in the Psalms — a most lively religious feel¬
ing, indicating that his own personal experience enabled him to
penetrate as by intuition into the depths of meaning treasured in
the oracles of God. “In the Pauline epistles,” says Tholuck, “he
merges himself in the spirit of the apostle, and becoming one with
him, as every one clearly feels, he deduces everywhere the explana¬
tion of that which is particular from that which is general, and is
in this respect to be compared with Chrysostom, whose rhetorical
education, however, sometimes exerted a bad influence upon him.
The whole history of the New Testament becomes in his hand alive
and vivid. He lives in every person who comes forward, either
speaking or acting, in the wicked as well as in the good ; and ex¬
plains every discourse from the circumstances, and from the soul of
him who speaks.” 1
Next to Calvin we may appropriately notice his intimate friend
and fellow reformer, Theodore Beza, who early enjoyed
the instruction of such masters as Faber (Stapulensis), Theodore Beza‘
Budseus, and John Lascaris, and became so distinguished as an apt
and brilliant scholar that of one hundred, who with him received
the master’s degree, he stood first. He lived to the great age of
eighty-six, and was the author of many useful works. The princi¬
pal monument of his exegetical skill is his Latin translation of the
New Testament, with full annotations.2 He was a consummate
critic, a man of remarkable quickness and versatility of intellect,
and widely distinguished for his profound and varied learning. His
comments are unlike those of Calvin in not making prominent
the religious element of the sacred writings, but his philological
1 The Merits of Calvin as an Interpreter of the Holy Scriptures. Translated from
the German in the Biblical Repository for July, 1832, p. 562. Comp. Gotch on same
subject in Kitto’s Journal of Sacred Literature for 1849, p. 222. Calvin’s works were
published in 9 folio vols., Amsterdam, 1671 (best edition). A new edition, edited by
Baum, Cunitz, and Reuss, is given in the Corpus Reformatorum, Brunswick, 1863-82
(yet incomplete). Tholuck’s edition of his New Testament Commentaries, in 7 vols.
8vo, is a very convenient one. English translation of Calvin’s works in 52 vols. 8vo.
Edinburgh.
2 The editio optima of Beza’s New Testament was published at Cambridge (1 vol.
fob, 1642), and contains his own new translation placed in a column between the
Greek text on the one side and the Yulgate on the other. It is accompanied by a
copious critical and exegetical commentary by the translator himself, and the com¬
mentary of Caracrurius is appended to the end of the volume.
678
HISTORY OF
learning and constant reference to the Greek and Hebrew texts are
more conspicuous.
Other distinguished exegetical writers of this period were Bugen-
hagen, Bucer, Osiander, Camerarius, Fagius, Musculus,
other exegetes. Aretius> Castellio, and Bullinger. John Bugenhagen
(called also Pomeranus, from his native place) assisted Luther in
translating the Scriptures, and wrote annotations on several books
of the Old and New Testaments. Luther extolled him as being the
first who deserved the name of commentator on the Psalms. Martin
Bucer was noted for his refinement, ingenuity, and conciliatory
methods. He was one of Luther’s coadjutors, and became famous
as a preacher and teacher throughout Germany. In 1549 he was
invited to England and appointed professor of theology at Cam¬
bridge. He was a voluminous author, and, as a biblical expositor,
maintained the grammatico-historical sense. Peter Martyr was the
author of commentaries on Genesis, J udges, Samuel, Kings, Lamen¬
tations, and some of the Pauline epistles. Andreas Osiander wrote
a Harmony of the Gospels, in which he maintained that the parallel
narratives are not accounts of the same events, but of similar events
which followed one another in four different periods. He also
published an emended edition of the Latin Vulgate with numerous
annotations, and various polemical treatises. Camerarius was the
author of a critical commentary on the New Testament, which is
published in the Cambridge edition of Beza’s New Testament.
Fagius, like Bucer, was appointed a professor in Cambridge Univer-
sity, and, at the request of Cranmer, they together planned a critical
edition of the entire Scriptures, but their work was cut off by early
death. Fagius was especially noted for his Hebrew learning, and
was the author of several works on the Hebrew language and litera¬
ture. Musculus acquired some note as a biblical interpreter, and
Aretius wrote a commentary on the Pentateuch and the entire New
Testament. Sebastian Castellio (or Castalion) was for a time asso¬
ciated with Calvin at Geneva, but after a few years left that place
because of his opposition to the Calvinian doctrine of predestination.
He wrote several exegetical treatises, and published complete Latin
and French versions of the Bible, which were made the subject of
much conflicting criticism. He was more of a critic and philologist
than an expositor.1 Heinrich Bullinger, the friend and ally of
Zwingle, and his successor at Zurich, was the author of many ex¬
pository discourses, which were so highly esteemed in England
that Archbishop Whitgift gave order that every clergyman should
1 Comp. Meyer, Geschiehte der Sclirifterklarung seit der Wiederlierstellung der
Wissenscliaften, vol. ii, pp. 290-297.
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
679
Flacius.
obtain a copy and read one of the sermons every week. Mention
should also be made of Carlstadt, Luther’s violent and unmanage-,
able fellow reformer, who maintained against him the genuineness
of the Epistle of James, and also published a work on the Canonical
Scriptures, in which the great Protestant doctrine of the paramount
authority of the Bible is ably set forth. 'John Agricola, the anti-
nomian, acquired considerable fame as an expositor, and published
commentaries on the Gospel of Luke and several epistles of Paul,
and John Brentius published expository discourses upon all the
books of the Old and New Testaments. Strigel, also, the gifted
pupil of Melanchthon, is noted for his scholia on the Old Testament,
and his Hypomnemata on all the books of the New Testament.
Matthias Flacius, (often called, from his native country, Illyricus),
the projector of the Magdeburg Centuries, was for a
time professor of Old Testament literature at Witten¬
berg. He was the author of numerous theological treatises; but
especially deserving of notice is his Clavis Scripturse Sacrse, an im¬
portant biblical and hermeneutical dictionary. “ The work,” says
Davidson, “ is an extraordinary one, whether we consider the time
at which it appeared, the copiousness of its matei'ials, the acuteness
of mind which it manifests, the learning it contains, or the amazing
industry of its author amid the violent restlessness of his turbulent
spirit. Succeeding writers have drawn largely from its pages; yet
its merits are such as to recommend a thorough perusal even at the
present day.” 1
Johannes Piscator flourished in the latter part of the sixteenth cen¬
tury, and was distinguished for his assiduous devotion
v ’ • Piscator.
to biblical and theological studies. He translated the
entire Bible into German, and also published a commentary on the
Old and New Testaments. Another eminent biblical scholar of
this period was Junius, who was associated at Heidel- ju nius and
berg with the converted Jew, Immanuel Tremellius, in Trememus.
preparing a Latin translation of the Old Testament. This impor¬
tant version was published in parts (from 1575 to 1579), and in the
course of twenty years passed through twenty editions.2 The trans¬
lation follows the original with great closeness, and was for many
years the most popular Latin version in use among Protestants.
Junius was also the author of commentaries on several Marlorat.
books of the Old and New Testaments. Augustine
Marloratus deserves honourable mention among the exegetes of this
1 Sacred Hermeneutics, p. 680. Best edition of the Clavis Scripturse is that of
MusfBus, Jena, 1674, and Erfurt, 1719.
2 The best edition is thought to be the seventh, Frankfort, 1624, fol.
680
HISTORY OF
period. He composed expositions of various books of Scripture,
but his most valuable work is his Catholic Exposition of the New
Testament, which contains Erasmus’ Latin version, and the com¬
ments of several ancient fathers, along with those of Erasmus, Cal¬
vin, Bucer, Melanchtlion, Zwingle, and others. The object of this
work was to exhibit the substantial harmony of the two Protestant
parties and their agreement with the ancient Church,
a onaus. j0jin Maldonatus, a Spanish Jesuit, acquired great dis¬
tinction at Paris as an expounder of the Scriptures, and Romanists
and Protestants attended his lectures. He was the author of com¬
mentaries on the principal books of the Old Testament and on the
four Gospels. He maintained the literal sense of Scripture, and
also showed great familiarity with the writings of the fathers.
Great attention was given during the sixteenth century to the
Translations of translation of the Bible into modern languages. Of
the Bible. Luther’s German version we have already spoken ; also
of the work of Lefevre, whose French version did much- to advance
the Protestant Reformation, although Lefevre never left the Ro¬
man Church (see above, p. 671). Olivetan, a relative of Calvin,
published in 1535 a French translation of the whole Bible, which
was subsequently revised by Calvin, Beza, Bertram, and others, and
appeared in many successive editions. In 1530 Antonio Bruccioli
published an Italian version of the New Testament, and in 1532 an
Italian version of the whole Bible. In 1562 an Italian version of
the New Testament, by Gallars and Beza, was published at Geneva
along with a revised edition of Bruccioli’s Old Testament. In 1607
the superior Italian version of Diodati appeared at Geneva. In
1543 the Spanish version of the New Testament by Enzinas was
issued at Antwerp. Other Spanish translations made by learned
Jews appeared a little later. A translation of the whole Bible into
the Helvetian, or German Swiss dialect, made chiefly by Leo Judse,
appeared in parts at Zurich from 1524 to 1529. In 1526 a Belgic
or Dutch translation of the Bible was published by Jacob a Lies-
veldt at Antwerp, and several editions of the Bohemian Bible were
printed at Prague from 1549 to 1577. The first edition of the
Polish Bible was issued at Cracow in 1561. It was a Catholic pub¬
lication, but being much indebted to the Protestant Bohemian
Bible, it never received the sanction of the pope. Numerous other
Polish versions, however, made by Protestants, were published dur¬
ing the century. A Danish translation of the New Testament
appeared at Leipsic in 1524, and at Wittemberg in 1558; and a
translation of the whole Bible into the Pomeranian tongue, a dialect
of Lower Saxony, was printed at Bardi in 1588. During the latter
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
6S1
half of this century translations of the whole or parts of the Bible
were published in the Icelandic, Finnish, Swedish, and Hungarian
languages. In 1525 William Tyndale published his- English version
of the New Testament at Worms. lie also translated the Penta¬
teuch and the Book of Jonah, which appeared subsequently.
Coverdale’s English version of the whole Bible appeared in 1535,
and in 1537 the so-called “Matthew’s Bible,” edited by the mar¬
tyr Rogers, who used the unpublished manuscripts of Tyndale.
In 1539 the version known as the “Great Bible” was published
under the superintendence of Grafton. In 1540 Cranmer’s Bible, a
mere revision of the Great Bible, was printed in England; in 1560
the “Geneva Bible,” the work of English refugees led by William
Whittingham, was printed at Geneva; in 1568 appeared the “Bish¬
op’s Bible,” under the superintendence of Archbishop Parker. All
these prepared the way for the Authorized Version, issued in 1611,
which has been the standard English version until the present
time. In 1582 the Anglo-Rhemish New Testament appeared, and
in 1609 and 1610 the so-called Douay Bible, made by English Ro¬
manists from the Latin Vulgate.
The interest taken in biblical studies during the sixteenth cen¬
tury is further shown in the Polyglot Bibles, which
were published at Antwerp (1568-73) and Nuremberg
(1599-1600). The former included the whole of the Complutensian
edition of Ximenes (see above, p. 672), and other important texts
and philological helps, and was prepared by Arias Montanus, as¬
sisted by a number of eminent scholars. Only five hundred copies
of this work were printed, and a part of these were lost by the
wreck of the vessel which conveyed them to Spain.1 The Nurem¬
berg Polyglot was due to the enterprise of Elias Hutter, a learned
German, and contained the New Testament in twelve languages.
He also published considerable portions of the Old Testament in six
different languages.
A careful study of the exegetical writings of the sixteenth cen¬
tury rev.eals two tendencies which early appeared among the Prot¬
estant reformers, and developed gradually during the next two
1 The honor of projecting this Polyglot is said to belong to Christopher Plantin,
who, finding himself inadequate to support the expenses of such an immense under¬
taking, presented a petition to Philip II., King of Spain, who promised to advance the
money necessary for the execution of the work, and to send learned men from Spain
to undertake the arrangement and direction of the impression. For this success Plan-
tin was considerably indebted to Cardinal Spinosa, counsellor of Philip II., who ap¬
proved the plan, and persuaded the sovereign to sanction it. — Townley, Illustrations
of Biblical Literature, vol. ii, p. 206. New York, 1842.
682
HISTORY OF
centuries, until in modern times the one lias run into extreme ra-
Exegeticai ten- tionalism, and the other into a narrow and dogmatic
denotes of the orthodoxy. These tendencies early separated the so-
Lutheran and . . T J t ™ . . ..
Reformed par- called Lutheran and Reformed parties. 1 lie more rigid
ties* orthodox Lutherans exhibited a proclivity to authorita¬
tive forms, and assumed a dogmatic tone and method in their use
of the Scripture. The Reformed theologians showed greater readi¬
ness to break away from churchly customs and traditional ideas,
and treat the Scriptures with a respectful, but free, critical spirit.
The two methods were made conspicuous in the dispute between
Luther and Zwingle over the meaning of the words, “This is my
body.” Luther and Melanchtlion, Zwingle and (Ecolampadius, met
at Marburg to reconcile, if possible, their differences. “ The theo¬
logians sat by a table,” writes Fisher, “ the Saxons on one side and
the Swiss opposite them. Luther wrote upon the table with chalk
his text — hoc est mearn corpus — and refused to budge an iota from
the literal sense. But his opponents would not admit the actual
presence of the body of Christ in the sacrament, or that his body is
received by unbelievers. Finally, when it was evident that no
common ground could be reached, Zwingle, with tears in his eyes,
offered the right hand of fraternal fellowship to Luther. But this
Luther refused to take, not willing, says Ranke, to recognise them
as of the same communion. But more was meant by this refusal:
Luther would regard the Swiss as friends, but such was the influ¬
ence of his dogmatic system over his feelings that he could not
bring himself to regard them as Christian brethren. Luther and
Melanchthon at this time appeared to have supposed that an agree¬
ment in every article of belief is the necessary condition of Christ¬
ian fellowship.” 1 The tone and attitude of these men toward one
another on that memorable occasion is a fair index of the relations
of rigid dogmatic exposition on the one hand, and conscientious
rational inquiry on the other. In general exposition no great differ¬
ences appeared among the early reformers. Luther and Melanch¬
thon represent the dogmatic, Zwingle, (Ecolampadius, and Beza the
more grammatico historical method of scriptural interpretation.
Calvin combined some elements of both, but belonged essentially
to the Reformed party. It was not until two centuries later that a
cold, illiberal, and dogmatic orthodoxy provoked an opposite ex¬
treme of lawless rationalism.
1 History of the Reformation, p. 152. New York, 1873.
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
CS:
CHAPTER VII.
EXEGESIS OF THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY.
The spirit of religious inquiry, and the widespread interest in bib¬
lical studies, which were created by the Protestant progress of bib-
Reformation, continued with unabated vigour in the Ucal studies,
seventeenth century. The Scriptures were translated into many
languages, and former translations were carefully revised, critical
and philological pursuits engaged the talents of the most distin¬
guished scholars of Europe, and almost innumerable exegetical
works made their appearance, from the diminutive pocket volume
to the ponderous folio commentaries and polyglots.
Toward the close of the sixteenth century the study of Hebrew
literature was greatly promoted by John Buxtorf, the
first notable Protestant rabbinical scholar. He was the
head of a family which for more than a century was distinguished
for attainments in Hebrew learning. The elder Buxtorf published
numerous treatises on Hebrew and Chaldee grammar and lexicog¬
raphy, and his Lexicon Chaldaicum Talmudicum et Rabbinicum
(Basle, 1639) remains to this day the most complete work of its
kind extant. Valentine Schindler prepared about this
time his Lexicon Pentaglotton, in which the cognate
Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, Talmudico-Rabbinic, and Arabic words
are alphabetically arranged and defined. The learned Frenchman,
Vatnblus, may also be mentioned as having a little be- Vatablus De
fore this revived the study of Hebrew among his eoun- nieu, and Dru-
trymen, and somewhat later Louis De Dieu did a similar slUfe'
wrnrk at the university of Leyden in the Netherlands. At this
university John Drusius was made professor of oriental languages
in 1577, and distinguished himself by several valuable contributions
to biblical literature, especially by his Annotations upon the New
Testament. The learned philologist, Joseph Scaliger, was also one
of the early professors at Leyden. The labors of these men pre¬
pared the way for a more thorough grammatical study of the Old
Testament Scriptures.
It was in the early part of this century (1611), as we have no¬
ticed, that the Authorized English Version appeared, Kinff James’
under the direction of King James, and the forty-seven Version-
learned men who took part in its execution indicate how many
Schindler.
684
HISTORY OF
competent scholars in England were at that time giving themselves
to the critical study of the Scriptures. About 1615 Le Jay pro¬
jected his immense work, the Paris Polyglot. Its pub-
Paris Polyglot. jjca^on wag RegUn in 1628 and completed in 1645 in
ten imperial folio volumes, containing the entire Bible in seven lan¬
guages (Hebrew, Samaritan, Chaldee, Greek, Syriac, Latin, and
Arabic). It is inconvenient in not presenting all these versions to¬
gether, but placing them in different volumes. Volumes i-iv con¬
tain the Hebrew, Chaldee, Septuagint, and Vulgate texts of the
Old Testament; volumes v and vi give the New Testament in
Greek, Syriac, Arabic, and Latin ; volume vii contains the Hebrew,
the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Samaritan version, with a Latin
translation by Morinus (J. Morin), and the Arabic and Syriac Pen¬
tateuch; volumes viii-x contain the rest of the Old Testament in
Syriac and Arabic. The work is too unwieldy to be of practical
value, and its great cost ruined the fortune of Le Jay. It was soon
London Poly- superseded by the London Polyglot of Brian Walton,
g'lot- the first volume of which was issued in 1654, and the
sixth and last in 165V. It presents in parallel columns, or on the
same page, the Pentateuch in eight languages, the Psalms in seven,
Joshua, Judges, Puth, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, and the four
Gospels in six, the rest of the New Testament and the Book of
Esther in five, and the other books of the Old Testament and the
Apocrypha (excepting Judith and Maccabees) in four. It was fol¬
lowed in 1669 by the Lexicon Ileptaglotton of Castell, a joint lexi¬
con of the Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, Samaritan, Ethiopic, and
Arabic, and a separate lexicon of the Persian, with short grammars
of those tongues (2 vols. folio). The entire work in eight uniform
volumes is a magnificent monument of human learning and industry.
Soon after the publication of the London Polyglot appeared that
The Critici immense collection of critical and exegetical writings
sacri. known as the Critici Sacri (London, 1660, 9 vols. folio).
It was prepared under the editorial supervision of Bishop Pearson,
Anthony Scattergood, and Francis Gouldman, and printed by Cor¬
nelius Bee. It was republished at Amsterdam, with considerable
additions, in 1698-1 702, in thirteen folio volumes. This work con¬
tains all the annotations of Grotius, Drusius, Munster, Vatablus,
Castalio, Clarius, Fagius on the first four chapters of Genesis, and
on the Chaldee paraphrase of the Pentateuch, Masius on Joshua,
Codurcus on Job, J. Price on the Psalms, Bayne on Proverbs,
Forerius on Isaiah, Edward Lively on Hosea, Amos, Obadiah, and
Jonah, and Bad well on the Apocrypha. The New Testament part
contains a similar range of authors, and the work is enriched by
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
685
numerous philological dissertations and tracts, such as Louis Cap-
pel on Jephthah’s vow, Urstius on the Construction of Noah’s ark,
and Fagius on the Principal Translations of the Old Testament.
This great work, with its supplements, has treasured up and pre¬
served the writings of many critics which would have otherwise
been quite inaccessible.
Poole’s Synopsis, published in 1669-74, in five folio volumes, is,
for substance, an abridgment of the Critici Sacri, al- rooie’s synop-
thougli it includes the comments of many other writers, sis-
and refers to versions not represented in the larger work. The
method of the Synopsis also differs from that of the Critici Sacri
in consolidating the various comments on each verse in one contig¬
uous paragraph, and designating the several writers by their initials
in the margin. This work is convenient in that it presents in a
brief space the views of many different expositors. It should be
remarked that the London Polyglot, with Castell’s Lexicon, the
Critici Sacri, and the Synopsis Criticorum, forming in all twenty-
two large folios, begun and finished in the space of twenty-one
years (1653-74) at the expense of a few English divines and noble¬
men, constitute a magnificent exegetical library, and will long stand
as a monument of English biblical learning and scholarship in the
seventeenth century. Matthew Poole, the author of the Synopsis
Criticorum, distinguished himself further by his English Annota¬
tions upon the whole Bible, a work which he left unfinished, and
which was completed after his death by other hands.
Among the learned men who assisted Walton, Castell, and Poole
in the preparation of the works above named, was John
. , A 1 . „ . . . TT , Lightfoot.
Lightfoot, pre-eminent for his attainments m Hebrew
and rabbinical literature. He was a member of the Westminster
Assembly, and opposed with great courage many of the tenets
which the Presbyterians were seeking to establish. He afterward
occupied several important positions in the Church of England.
His principal works are a Chronological Arrangement of the Books
of the Old and New Testaments, Gleanings in Exodus, Erubhim,
or Miscellaneous Tracts on Sundry Biblical Themes, a Harmony of
the Four Gospels, a Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles,
Description of the Temple at Jerusalem in the Time of our Saviour,
and Horse Hebraicse et Tahnudicse, on the Gospels, Acts, Romans,
and First Corinthians. In all his works, but especially in the last-
named, he draws upon his vast stores of Hebrew and rabbinical
learning to illustrate the language of the Bible, and show the con¬
nexion between the New Testament and the Jewish Midrashim.
Lightfoot’s works have been published in Latin and in English, and
C86
HISTORY OF
have ever commanded, and still hold, a deservedly high place in
biblical literature.1
Another important helper in the preparation of the London Poly-
Edward po- glot, and without whose aid that great work would
c°ek. have wanted much of its perfection, was Edward Po-
cock, probably at that time the most accomplished oriental scholar
of Europe. One of his earliest labours in biblical literature was
the transcription, from a manuscript in the Bodleian library at Ox¬
ford, of a Syriac version of the Second Epistle of Peter, the Second
and Third Epistles of John, and the Epistle of Jude, the only books
at that time wanting to complete an edition of the Syriac New
Testament. He was too modest to publish it himself, but Vossius
obtained his copy and took it to Leyden, where it was printed un¬
der the care of De Dieu. A residence of six years at Aleppo, in
Syria, gavePocock great advantages in prosecuting oriental studies.
On his return to England he was made professor of Arabic at Ox¬
ford, and, notwithstanding various privations, interruptions, and
embarrassments, he continued his favourite literary pursuits through
a long lifetime, and left behind him many works of enduring value.
He published six prefatory discourses of Maimonides’ Commentary
on the Mishna, with a Latin translation and notes, under the title
of Porta Mosis. He was also the author of commentaries, some¬
what diffuse and abounding with rabbinical learning, on ILosea,
Joel, Micah, and Malachi.
Other English exegetes of note belonging to this century were
other English Henry Hammond, an Arminian divine, and author of a
exegetes. valuable Paraphrase and Annotations on the New Test¬
ament and on the Psalms and Proverbs; William Pemble, an emi¬
nent Calvinistic preacher and scholar, who wrote expositions of
Ecclesiastes, Zechariah, and many obscure passages of Scripture;
Robert Leighton, archbishop of Glasgow, whose Practical Com¬
mentary on the First Epistle of Peter, and other expository writ¬
ings, are full of excellent sense; Henry Ainsworth, an early leader
of the Independents, and author of useful annotations on several
books of the Bible, containing a new translation of the Pentateuch,
Psalms, and Canticles. Thomas Gataker was one of the ablest
divines of the Westminster Assembly, and one of the principal
authors of the Annotations upon all the Books of the Old :md
New Testaments, which are commonly known as the Westminster
Annotations. Gataker’s share of this work embraced the Greater
1 Lightfoot’s works were published at London in 1684 in 2 vols. folio ; at Rotterdam,
1686, 2 vols. folio; at Utrecht, in 1699, 3 vols. folio; and at London, 1822-25, 13
vols. 8vo.
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
687
Prophets. Among his collaborators were Ley, William Gouge (who
also wrote a commentary on Hebrews), Meric Casaubon, Francis Tay¬
lor, Edward Reynolds, and John Richardson. William Attersoll,
a nonconformist divine, wrote commentaries on Numbers and the
Epistle to Philemon. Bythner, a native of Poland, gave instruction
in Hebrew the University of Oxford, and wrote a number of phil¬
ological tre^ises, and a grammatical explanation of the Psalms en¬
titled the Lyre of David, an excellent and full Chrestomathy of the
entire Hebrew Psalter. Joseph Caryl is known chiefly from his
immense work on the Book of Job (12 vols. 4to, and 2 vols. folio).
Richard Baxter, chiefly distinguished for his modifications of Cal¬
vinism, and pre-eminent as theologian, preacher, and pastor, was au¬
thor of a Paraphrase of the New Testament. Arthur Jackson
wrote valuable Annotations on the. Prophecy of Isaiah, and “A
Help for the Understanding of the Holy Scriptures” (Camb., 1643,
3 vols. 4 to). Thomas Godwin composed a useful treatise on the
Civil and Ecclesiastical Rites of the Ancient Hebrews, and several
other works illustrative of the Old Testament Scriptures. John Good¬
win, the famous English Arminian, wrote, in addition to his numer¬
ous theological treatises, an exposition of Romans ix; and Thomas
Goodwin, a contemporary Calvinistic divine, wrote on Ephesians
and Revelation. Davenant, bishop of Salisbury, one of the English
theologians who attended the Synod of Dort, was author of an
elaborate exposition (in Latin) of Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians,
which was afterward translated into English by Allport. Bishop
Bull wrote an extensive work, entitled Harmonia Apostolica, to
show the agreement between the Epistles of James and Paul, and
to explain the peculiar doctrine of each apostle. Here also we
should mention the learned James Usher, a laborious student and
accomplished biblical scholar, whose Annals of the Old and New
Testaments established a chronology of the Bible which has been
quite generally adopted until the present time.
The encouragement and patronage which Archbishop Laud gave
to biblical and oriental learning deserves a passing notice.
Although he wrote very little himself, he employed the
most learned men in foreign countries to purchase valuable Greek
and oriental manuscripts; he founded the chair of Arabic at Ox¬
ford, which Pocock was the first to fill, and he presented to the
university, first and last, more than twelve hundred manuscripts,
which he had procured from various places and at vast expense.
Few Englishmen of the seventeenth century are more
& •• t John Owen,
widely known for their theological writings than John
Owen, the acknowledged leader of the Congregationalists during
C88
HISTORY OF
the time of Cromwell, and for some time after the restoration
of Charles II. His most extensive work is an Exposition of the
Epistle to the Hebrews, which has been published in many separate
editions as well as in his collected works. Jos^h Mede
distinguished himself in the early part of the century
by his various contributions to biblical literature, especially his
Clavis Apocalyptica, and other writings, both in Latin and English,
on the Revelation of John. Hurd speaks of him as “a sublime
genius, without vanity, interest, or spleen, but with a single un¬
mixed love of truth, dedicating his great talents to the study of
the prophetic Scriptures, and unfolding the mysterious prophecies
of the Revelation.”1
The famous French scholar, Isaac Casaubon, flourished at the be-
French exe- ginning of this century, and deserves our notice for his
getes. critical edition of the Greek Testament, the notes of
which were reprinted in the Critici Saeri. The two brothers
Jacques and Louis Cappel contributed largely to the exegetical
literature of this period by their various observations, disquisitions,
commentaries, and critical notes on the Old and New Testaments.
Many of these were also reprinted in the Critici Sacri. Menochius,
a learned Italian, was the author of brief but valuable annotations
on the whole Bible. Antoine Goddeau, a Roman Catholic bishop,
distinguished himself by a French translation and exposition of the
New Testament and the Psalms. Richard Simon acquired a de¬
served celebrity by his Critical History of the Old Testament, and
showed a boldness and independence of thought remarkable for a
Roman Catholic. He anticipated modern Rationalism in denying
the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and attributing its com¬
position to the age of Ezra and the Great Synagogue. The Catholic
theologian Estius also obtained great repute as a biblical scholar by
annotations on the difficult parts of Scripture, and a valuable com¬
mentary on the apostolical epistles. Jacob Tirinus, a Jesuit, was
also distinguished as an exegete, and his comments, along with those
of Gagner, Estius, and Menochius, were published by De la Haye
in what was called the Biblia Magna (5 vols. fol., 1643), a work
somewhat after the order of the Critici Sacri. This work was af¬
terward enlarged by the notes of Lyra and others, and issued in
nineteen volumes (Paris, 1660) under the title of Biblia Maxima.
Rivet, a French Protestant, spent his best years in Holland, and
wrote, in addition to many other works, a General Introduction to
the Holy Scriptures, and commentaries on Exodus and Hosea.
Jacques Gaillard became pastor of a Walloon church in Holland
1 Introduction to the Study of the Prophecies, vol. ii, p. 122.
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
689
about 1662, and became known as the author of a treatise on the
genealogy of Jesus as recorded in Matthew and Luke, and also on
Melchizedek as a type of Christ. Samuel Bochart, born at Rouen
in 1599, was a man of vast learning, acquainted with Hebrew, Syriac,
Chaldee, and Arabic, and author of a Sacred Geography, which
obtained for him an invitation to the court of Sweden, where he
was greatly honoured. He is better known by his Hierozoicon, or
Natural History of the Bible.
The Protestant Reformation found in no European country a more
congenial soil than that of the Netherlands. The people Early progress
were of independent spirit, and noted for their love of of *:he Refor"
freedom, industry, and extensive commerce with foreign Netherlands,
countries. The University of Leyden, founded in 1575, became in
the early part of the seventeenth century the most renowned seat of
learning in all Europe, numbering at times nearly two thousand stu¬
dents. In this celebrated university James Arminius be¬
came professor of theology in 1603. He had already, in Arminius-
his published lectures on the ninth chapter of Romans, opposed the
views of Calvin and Beza on predestination, and soon after his ap¬
pointment at Leyden he fell into controversy Avith one of his fellow
professors, Francis Gomar, a strenuous Calvinist. This controversy
disturbed for many years the peace of the Reformed Church of the
Netherlands, and continued with increased bitterness after the death
of Arminius (1609), and led to the holding of the Synod of Dort
(1618), at which (the Calvinists being largely in the majority) the
opinions of the Arminian Remonstrants Avere condemned, their min¬
isters Avere deposed, and many of them banished from the country ;
and all Avho embraced Arminian doctrines Avere excluded from the
felloAvship of the Church, and their religious assemblies were sup¬
pressed by laAv. The Arminian theology was, hoAvever, too deeply
grounded in a comprehensive and rational exegesis of the Scriptures
to be thus put doAArn. When Arminius entered upon his work at
Leyden, he openly set himself against scholastic subtleties and arbi¬
trary assumptions, and maintained that the truth of God could be
ascertained only by a thorough study of the Holy Scriptures. He was
an adept in the original languages of the Bible, thoroughly versed
in the writings of the ancient fathers, a man of profound spiritual
insight, and, at the same time, most engaging in his personal de¬
meanor. Neander calls him the “pattern of a conscientious and
zealously investigating theologian, who endeavoured to guard
himself against all partiality.” 1 His exegetical and theological
1 History of Christian Dogmas, vol. ii, p. 677. Lond., 1858. See the works of
Arminius, translated into English by Nicholls and Bagnall, 3 vols. New York, 1843.
44
G90
HISTORY OF
writings bear evidence of his great learning, clear judgment, and
convincing logic, which his opponents found it difficult to meet.
Uytenbogaert was a distinguished leader of the Arminian Remon-
other Dutch strants, and a most able and eloquent preacher. lie was
divines. noted for casting aside the dry scholastic methods, and
basing his discourses directly on the Scriptures. Simon Episcopius
was the chief representative of the Arminian s at the Synod of Dort,
after which he was obliged, with other Remonstrants, to leave Hol¬
land. During his absence from the country he published several
learned dissertations in defence of Arminianism, and among them
an exegetical paraphrase of Rom. viii-xi. In 1626 he returned to
his native land, became identified with the Remonstrants’ college at
Amsterdam, and spent the rest of his life in preaching and literary
activity. His contemporaries, both friends and enemies, acknowl¬
edged his great abilities and acquaintance with the Scriptures.
He was succeeded at Amsterdam by Curcellaeus, who was especially
devoted to New Testament studies, and published a critical edition
of the Greek Testament. A worthy associate of these celebrated
divines was Limborch, who edited several of their works, and was
the author of the Theologia Christiana, an original and complete
system of Arminian doctrine. He also wrote commentaries on the
Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles to the Romans and Hebrews,
which deserve commendation for their clear and simple method of
interpretation.
In connexion with these Dutch divines of the Arminian school
we should notice Hugo Grotius, one of the most remark¬
able men of the seventeenth century, and eminent alike
in theology, politics, and general literature. Though suffering the
confiscation of his property, imprisonment, and exile, his learning
and talents commanded for him the attention of kings and princes,
and of the educated men of Europe. Besides learned works in civil
jurisprudence, apologetics, and dogmatic theology, he wrote an¬
notations on the Old and New Testaments and the Apocrypha. His
exegesis is distinguished for its philological and historical charac¬
ter, and the uniform good sense and good taste displayed. He has
been called the forerunner of Ernesti, but he often noticeably fails
to grasp the plan and scope* of the sacred writers, and to trace the
connexion of thought. He lacked the profound religious intuition of
Luther and Calvin, and leaned to a rationalistic treatment of Scrip¬
ture.1 Abraham Calovius, a. contemporary Lutheran theologian,
1 All the theological works of Grotius were published in three folio volumes at
London, in 1679. His annotations, with a life of the author, are contained in the first
two volumes. They also appear in the Critici Sacri.
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION'.
691
published the Biblia Illustrata (4 vols. fob, Dresden, 1719), in
which he embodied the whole of Grotius’ annotations,
and accompanied them with severe criticisms. He also CaIovlus-
violently opposed the teachings of George Calixtus, whose mild and
conciliatory methods aimed to settle the disputes between contend¬
ing parties in the Church.
The names of Heinsius, Vossius, and Spanheim will ever be asso¬
ciated with the cultivation of biblical and philological
. . TT . ° Heinsius, Vos-
learmng. Heinsius acted as secretary to the Synod of sius, spanheim,
Dort, and is known as the editor of many of the Greek Hottia^er’ etc*
and Roman classics, and author of twenty books of dissertations on
the New Testament. Gerard Jan Vossius and his son Isaac were
both eminent as philologists and theologians, but not as' great bibli¬
cal exegetes. The same may be said of Friedrich Spanheim and his
two sons, Ezekiel and Friedrich, whose lives and labours together
extended over the entire seventeenth century. The great Swiss
theologian and scholar, J. II. Hottinger, may be mentioned here as
contributing largely to the progress of Semitic and other oriental
studies; also Anthony Bynaeus, who made great attainments in
Hebrew and Syriac, and wrote several exegeti< al works, and James
Alting, professor of Hebrew at Groningen, author of a Syro-Chal-
daic grammar, commentaries on most of the books of the Bible, and
various theological treatises.
One of the most eminent scholars of the Dutch Reformed Church
of the seventeenth century was Voetius, who received his
• • • • Voetius
early training at Leyden under Gomar, Arminius, and
their colleagues. He was an influential member of the Synod of
Dort, and a violent opponent of the Arminians. He also made it a
great work of his life to oppose the Cartesian philosophy. But his
methods of procedure tended to cultivate a narrow and dogmatic
spirit, and his exegesis, accordingly, aimed rather to support and
defend a theological system than to ascertain by valid reason the
exact meaning of the sacred writers. Pie was vehemently polemi¬
cal, and became the acknowledged head and leader of a school of
exegesis which assumed to adhere strictly to the literal sense, but,
at the same time, regarded all biblical criticism as highly dangerous
to the orthodox faith. The Voetians would fain have made the
dogmas of the Synod of Dort the authoritative guide to the sense
of Scripture, and were restless before an appeal to the original
texts of the Bible and independent methods of interpretation.
The great opponent both of scholasticism and of a narrow
" A A . C0CC61US.
dogmatical exegesis was John Cocceius, a man of broad
and thorough scholarship, an adept in Greek, Hebrew, Chaldee,
692
HISTORY OF
Arabic, and rabbinical literature, and a worthy compeer of such
scholars as Buxtorf, Vossius, and Grotius. He devoted him¬
self chiefly to biblical exposition, publishing commentary after
commentary until he had gone through nearly all the canonical
books.1 Although his labours revived and encouraged allegorical
and mystical methods of interpretation, it must be conceded that
he exhibited many of the very best qualities of a biblical exegete,
and did as much as any man of his time to hold up the Holy Scrip¬
tures as the living fountain of all revealed theology, and the only
authoritative rule and standard of faith. He insisted that the Old
and New Testaments must be treated as one organic whole, and
that each passage should be interpreted according to the meaning
of its words, the connexion of thought as traceable through an en¬
tire discourse, book, or epistle, and the analogy of faith, or scope
and plan of the one complete revelation of God. He maintained
that Christ is the great subject of divine revelation in the Old Test¬
ament as well as in the New, and hence arose the saying that Coc-
ceins found Christ everywhere in the Old Testament, but Grotius
nowhere. It is due, however, to the memory of Cocceius to say
that while he too often pressed the typical import of Old Testa¬
ment texts to an undue extreme, he acted on the valid principle
that the Hebrew Scriptures contain the germs of the Gospel revela¬
tion, and that, according to the express teaching of our Lord (John
v, 39; Luke xxiv, 21), the Old Testament contained many things
concerning himself. The errors into which he fell are less grave
than those of not a few modern critics who exhibit a notable one¬
sidedness in failing to see that the written revelation of God is
truly an organic whole, and that the New Testament cannot be
interpreted without the Old, nor the Old without the New. Coc-
<3eius’ method was not always safe or satisfactory. “His federal
theology,” says Immer, “had an influence on his treatment of Scrip¬
ture in so far as not dogma, but the economy of salvation was his
guiding principle. This might lead to a natural religio-historical,
it might also lead to an artificial typological, treatment. Cocceius
was too much under the influence of his time not to have fallen
into the latter Yet it was already a great gain that an attempt
was made to give to Scripture, and indeed to the fundamental idea
of Scripture, the supremacy in theology.” 8
John Leusden was professor of Hebrew at Utrecht during nearly
all the latter half of the seventeenth century. His critical and
*-The works of Cocceius were published at Amsterdam, 1676-78, in 8 vols. folio,
and in 1701 in 10 vols. folio.
8 Hermeneutics of the New Testament, p. 46. Andover, 1877.
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
693
Olearius.
exegetical works embrace several editions of the Hebrew and Greek
Scriptures, a Hebrew grammar and lexicon, various ,
. , , ° ’ . Leusden and
treatises in the department of biblical introduction, and Cornelius 4
Latin translations of David Kimchi’s commentaries on Lapide-
Jonah, Joel, and Obadiah. He also edited Lightfoot’s works in
Latin, and Poole’s Synopsis. His writings were not only charac¬
terized by exact and ample learning, but also adapted to meet
practical wants, and are of solid value even at this day. Corne¬
lius a Lapide, the learned Roman Catholic commentator, and pro¬
fessor of Hebrew at Louvain, and afterward at Rome, compiled
from the fathers an elaborate exposition of all the books of the
Bible except Job and the Psalms. It was published at Antwerp
(1681, 10 vols fob), Venice (1730, 11 vols. fol.), and Lyons (1838,
11 vols. 4to).
Biblical scholarship in Germany during the seventeenth century
furnished fewer names and works of great celebrity
than either Holland or England. Nevertheless, many
German exegetes of great merit appeared, some of whom have al¬
ready been incidentally noticed. The name of Olearius was made
famous by eight different persons, members of one family, who con¬
tributed in various ways to the advancement of exegetical and the¬
ological learning. The most distinguished of these for biblical
scholarship was John Olearius, professor of Greek and of theology
at the University of Leipsic. He wrote a work on the Elements
of Sacred Hermeneutics, another on the style of the New Testa¬
ment, and also several philological and theological treatises. His
son Gottfried wrote a learned analysis of the Epistle to the He¬
brews, and Observations on the Gospel of Matthew.
Other distinguished German scholars, who contributed to the
progress of biblical learning, were Solomon Glassius Qther Germafl
and Erasmus Schmidt. The former was educated at biblical scboi-
Wittenberg and Jena, and became noted for his knowl- ars‘
edge of Hebrew and cognate languages. He wrote several useful
works, among which were an Exposition of the Gospels and Epis¬
tles, and his celebrated Philologia Sacra, a kind of philologico-bib-
lical lexicon of scriptural words and tropes.1 Schmidt was the
author of a very convenient concordance of the Greek Testament,
which is still in use, but which has recently been greatly enlarged
and improved by Bruder. George Pasor was author of a lexicon
and grammar of the New Testament, and Dietrich, a Lutheran
1 The best edition of the Philologia Sacra is that of Leipsic, 1725, 4to. The edi¬
tion of Dathe and Bauer (Lps., 1776-97, 3 vols. 8vo) is interpolated with rationalistic
notions
694
HISTORY OF
.theologian, distinguished himself in the same department by Lb
Philologico-Theological Lexicon of the New Testament. (Frankf.,
1680). Augustus Pfeiffer became noted toward the close of this
century for his rare attainments in philology and contributions
to biblical literature. His Dubia Yexata is a convenient and use¬
ful series of dissertations on the more difficult passages of the Old
Testament.1 Martin Geier wrote a commentary on the Psalms,
Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes. Sebastian Schmid was the author of
a Latin translation of the Old and New Testaments, and learned
commentaries on Genesis, Judges, Ruth, Kings, Job, Ecclesiastes,
Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the Minor Prophets; also on Romans, Gala¬
tians, Ephesians, Colossians, and Hebrews.
In the latter part of the seventeenth century there appeared many.
Progress of notable indications of a widespread yearning for liberty
f ree thought. 0f thought and of speech. The Baconian and Carte¬
sian systems of philosophy did not a little in preparing the way.
The speculations of the celebrated Spinoza gave a mighty impulse
to the movement. His famous Tractatus Theologico-Politicus was
to the seventeenth century what Strauss’ Life of Jesus has been to
the nineteenth. “The book marks an epoch,” says Farrar, “a new
era in the critical and philosophical investigation of
religion. Spinoza’s ideas are, as it were, the head wa¬
ters from which flows the current which is afterward parted into
separate streams.” 2 His speculations anticipated many of the later
teachings of rationalism. His philosophy necessarily excluded the
reality of any miraculous interference of Deity in the affairs of the
world, and he explained prophecy as the combined product of vivid
imagination and ardent desire. The writings of Lord Herbert and
Hobbes contributed also to the politico-religious theorizing of that
age. As early as 1644 Milton published his Areopagitica, or plea
for the liberty of unlicensed printing, and a little later Jeremy
Taylor produced his work, entitled Liberty of Prophesying, in
which he warmly pleaded for freedom of public worship and relig¬
ious ministrations. Locke’s Letters on Toleration advocated en¬
tire religious freedom. The irrepressible tendencies to freedom of
thought and speech, indicated by such publications, led to virulent
controversy and political revolution, but were the means of devel¬
oping a more thorough investigation of the historical beginnings of
Christianity, and a more exact and scientific interpretation of its
sacred books.
1 Third edition with valuable additions, Leipsic, 1692, 4to.
2 Critical History of Free Thought, p. 112. New York, 1866.
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
695
CHAPTER VIII.
EXEGESIS OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.
The eighteenth century was notably a period of enlightenment.
Biblical criticism and interpretation assumed a more sci- A peri0(i0f en-
entific character, penetrating to the historical founda- Hg&temnent.
tions of the books of Scripture. It was an age of research, of philo¬
sophical investigation, of sceptical and rationalistic assaults upon
Christianity, of extensive religious revival, and of political revolu¬
tion. These exciting and often conflicting movements gave a new
and marked impulse to biblical studies. The great exegetical
scholars of this period, too numerous to be fully described in these
pages, laid the foundations of that exact grammatico-liistorical in¬
terpretation which is yielding its rich and varied products in our
own day.
The Cocceian school of exegesis, already described (pp. 691, 692),
was ably represented at the beginning of this century by
Campegius Vitringa, whose elaborate commentary on
Isaiah is one of the most comprehensive, carefully arranged, and
exhaustive specimens of biblical exposition which has ever appeared
in any age. It has the faults of the Cocceian method, and occasion¬
ally runs into mystical and allegorical interpretations. It assumes
such a fulness of meaning in the words of prophecy that effort is
constantly made to show how much the language of Isaiah may
signify. Nevertheless, it exhibits great exegetical ability; it is a
storehouse of useful exposition, and has been acknowledged by all
succeeding writers as a work of solid and permanent value. Vi¬
tringa was also the author of an important work on the Ancient
Synagogue, and numerous other treatises on various topics of sacred
literature. ITis son Campegius, known as “ the younger,” acquired
some distinction by a work on Natural Theology and a volume of
Sacred Dissertations.
Another distinguished writer of this school was Herman Witsius,
who maintained with great learning, and on a scriptural Witgiug Lampe
basis, the Federal theology. He was surpassed, how- 1 sms’ ampe*
ever, as an exegete, by F. A. Lampe, professor of theology at
Utrecht and later at Bremen, whose very full commentary on the
Gospel of John holds even to this day a high rank among the
696
HISTORY OF
learned expositions of that important book. A more voluminous
commentator was the learned Dutch divine, Herman
venema. yellemaj professor of theology at Frankener. His life
extended over the greater part of the eighteenth century, and he
wrote extensively upon Genesis, the Psalms (6 vols. 4to), and many
of the prophetical books.
John Le Clerc, often called Clericus, was one of the most prolific
exegetical writers of the Netherlands. Though born
Le Clerc. an(j educated at Geneva he became identified with the
Remonstrants, and spent most of his life as professor at the Armin-
ian college of Amsterdam. Besides editing many of the Greek
and Latin classics, a new issue of Cotelerius’ Patres Apostolici, the
complete works of Erasmus, and some theological treatises of Peta-
vius and Grotius, he published a French translation of the New
Testament, and a Latin translation of Hammond’s Annotations on
the New Testament, with valuable additions of his own. But his
greatest exegetical work was a Latin translation of the Old Testa¬
ment and commentary on the same (4 vols. fol., Amsterd., 1693-
1731). The translation is faithful, though not as close to the original
Hebrew as others that have been made, and the notes are critical,
abounding in happy and pertinent suggestions, usually clear and dis¬
criminating, but at times evincing a notable rationalistic tendency.1
Albert Schultens, professor of Arabic and Hebrew at Leyden,
was among the first to oppose the notion then prevalent
Sciiuitens. ^at Hebrew was the original language of mankind. He
has been called the father of modern Hebrew grammar, and his
labours not only contributed greatly to the advancement of oriental
learning, but also gave a decided impulse to Old Testament philol¬
ogy and exegesis. Besides his various works on Hebrew, Chaldee,
and Syriac grammar, and numerous philological dissertations, he
wrote commentaries on several books of the New Testament, some
of which yet remain in manuscript. His son John Jacob, and his
grandson Heinrich, were also distinguished as oriental scholars.
Unsurpassed by any of these as an orientalist was Reland, pro¬
fessor at Utrecht. He was pre-eminent for his ample
learning, painstaking accuracy, and sound judgment.
His published works are mainly in the field of biblical antiquities,
and among them the most important is his Palestine Illustrated
from Ancient Monuments, which yet remains the standard work on
Palestine before the time of the Crusades, and, so far as it goes,
cannot well be superseded.
1 See Mever, Geschichte der Schrifterklarung seit der Wiederherstellung der Wis-
sensckaften, vol. iv, pp. 441-446.
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
097
Christian Schoettgen is especially known by his Horae Hebraicae
et Talmudicae on the New Testament (2 vols. 4to, Dres- Schoetrgen
den, 1733—42). This valuable work follows the plan of Meuschen.
Lightfoot’s Horae Hebraicae (see above, p. 685), and aims to sup¬
plement or complete it by a similar treatment of the books of the
New Testament not covered by the work of Lightfoot. Schoettgen
* was also the author of a volume on the true Messiah, and a Lexicon
of the New Testament. J. G. Meuschen deserves honourable notice
for his work on the New Testament as illustrated from the Talmud
(Coburg, 1724, 4to), and for other miscellaneous contributions to
biblical literature. Surenhusius was also distinguished
for his attainments in Hebrew and rabbinical learning. Surenhuslus-
His edition of the Mishna, with a Latin translation and notes, has
not been superseded, and his work on the Old Testament citations
in the New Testament, illustrated by the rabbinical writings, re¬
mains without a rival to this day. Ley decker, a theo¬
logical professor at Utrecht, was famous both for his Leydecker*
proficiency in biblical and rabbinical studies and his opposition to
the systems of Cocceius and Descartes. His most useful contribu-
. tion to biblical literature was a treatise on the Republic of the
Hebrews, a large folio volume (Amst., 1704), in which the antiqui¬
ties of the Hebrew people are set forth in connexion with a histor¬
ical narrative, arranged by epochs, and abounding with evidences
of extensive research in Jewish history and literature. Peter Wes-
seling, another professor at Utrecht, published several works on
Jewish antiquities, and dissertations on various books of Scripture.
J. C. Wolf distinguished himself in the field of Jewish literature
by his celebrated Bibliotheca Hebraea, a storehouse of information
on matters of Jewish antiquity. His Curae Philologicae on the
New Testament also contains a vast mass of sound and useful anno¬
tations. Alberti, a Dutch theologian, and Kypke, a German orient¬
alist, wrote valuable works designed to illustrate the language of
the New Testament by means of parallel passages from Greek classic
authors. Augustine Calmet, a learned Benedictine, is known in
all Christendom by his voluminous commentaries on the Old and
New Testaments and his Dictionary of the Bible; and the French
Protestant scholar, Beausobre, acquired great distinction by his
various contributions to dogmatic and biblical theology. Pasquier
Quesnel, the devout French Catholic, is also widely known by his
Moral Reflections on the New Testament.
Noteworthy progress was made during this century in the science
of Textual Criticism. Critical editions of the Hebrew text of the
Old Testament had been published by Munster (1536), Buxtorf
698
HISTORY OF
Kennicott.
(1619), and Jablonski (1699). In 1705 appeared the excellent edi¬
tion of Van der Hooght, giving the Masoretic readings
Progress in . ° ® n . . . .. .
Textual Criti- m the margin, and at the end an additional collection
cism’ of various readings. J. H. Michaelis published his
edition in 1720. He collated, somewhat inaccurately, twenty-four
printed editions of the Hebrew Bible, and five manuscripts in the
library of Erfurt. Christian Reincccius, a Lutheran divine, pub¬
lished a Hebrew Bible in which lie professed to incorporate the
results of a faithful collation of the best codices and editions; but
his work is without critical apparatus or notation. Houbigant, a
French priest, published in four folio volumes (Paris,
Houbigant. 1754) a new edition, using the text of Van der
Hooght, and proposing in the margin and at the end of each vol¬
ume numerous corrections. He made use of the Samaritan Penta¬
teuch and various manuscripts accessible in the libraries of Paris.
Although the work was executed with great care, its numerous
conjectural emendations have exposed it to adverse criticism. Ben¬
jamin Kennicott, a learned Englishman, after having pub¬
lished various dissertations on the state of the printed
Hebrew text of the Old Testament, entered upon the preparation
of a critical edition of it, and secured the co-operation of several
foreign scholars. Six hundred and ninety-four manuscripts were
collated, sixteen manuscripts of the Samaritan Pentateuch, and all
the most noted printed editions of the Hebrew Bible. Twenty
years of assiduous labour were given to this enterprise, and the
result was published at Oxford in two folio volumes, the first in
1776, the second in 1780. Although it was a work of herculean
labcfcir and praiseworthy industry, the great number of various
readings furnished are comparatively unimportant, and serve to
show that no great help to the emendation of the Hebrew text can
be expected from a collation of existing manuscripts. An impor¬
tant supplement to Kennicott’s work was published at Parma
(4 vols. 4to, 1784-88) by the Italian orientalist, De Rossi,
who collated anew many of the manuscripts used by
Kennicott, and nearly six hundred others, besides printed editions,
Samaritan manuscripts, and ancient versions. An edition of the
Hebrew Bible, based upon that of Beineccius, and containing the
most important of Kennicott’s and De Rossi’s various readings, was
published at Leipsic, 1793, by Doderlein and Meisner, and a much
more correct and elegant edition, embodying the best results of
previous collations, was published a little later by Jahn (Vienna,
1806, 4 vols. 8vo).
New Testament textual criticism was greatly promoted during
De Rossi.
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
699
this period by the labours of Mill and Bentley in England, and
Bengel and Wetstein in Germany. John Mill spent
thirty years in preparing his edition of the Greek Testa- J‘ MiU*
ment, which was published at Oxford in 1707, only fourteen days
before its author’s death. Its various readings amount to about
thirty thousand, and its prolegomena are of permanent value. In
1<20 Richard Bentley, then regius professor of divinity
at Cambridge, published his proposals for a new edition BentIey*
of the Greek and Latin Testament, which should abandon the
Textus Receptus, and, making use of no authority under nine hun¬
dred years old, would “ take two thousand errors out of the Pope’s
Vulgate, and as many out of the Protestant Pope Stephen’s.” He
gave the last chapter of the Apocalypse in Greek and Latin as a
specimen.1 His plan was essentially that which was carried out a
century later by Lachmann, and his rare attainments in classical
scholarship and extensive preparations for his task would doubtless
have produced a most important contribution to biblical literature.
But unfortunate controversies into which he became involved frus¬
trated this worthy enterprise, and no other important effort in that
line was made again in England until the following century.
John Albert Bengel published in 1734 a critical edition of the
Greek Testament together with a critical commentary, in
which he enunciated his principles, and set the example BengeL
of giving the testimonies both for and against the received text.
Bengel is better known by his Gnomon of the New Testament, a
condensed but remarkably rich and suggestive commentary, which
aims, according to the titlepage, to “point out from the natural
force of the words the simplicity, depth, harmony, and saving
power of the divine thoughts.” His principles of interpretation
are in the main essentially sound, and his methods of exposition
have not been greatly improved upon by any later writers.2 In his
attempt to expound prophecy, however, especially the book of
Revelation, he showed defective judgment, and indulged in vain
speculations.
In 1751-2 John J. Wetstein published his exceedingly valuable
edition of the Greek Testament (Amst., 2 vols. fol.). His
^ * WctstciD.
judgment as a critic was not of the highest order, but
his work is of enduring: value for its vast research and collation of
1 Proposals for Printing a New Edition of the Greek Testament and St. Hierom’s
Latin version, with a full Answer to all the Remarks of a late Pamphleteer. Lond.,
1721. 4to.
2 An English translation of the Gnomon was published at Edinburgh, 5 ^ols., 1857,
1858, and another, much improved by Lewis and Vincent, at Philadelphia, 1860, 1861.
700
HISTORY OF
authorities, its abundant citation of Hebrew, Greek, and Latin
writers, and its learned prolegomena, so indispensable to every
thorough critic. With him originated the custom, now universally
current, of designating the uncial manuscripts by the letters of the
alphabet, and the cursive by numerals. Other scholars of note
who contributed to the advancement of textual criticism were C. F.
Matthsei, a professor at Moscow, Alter, a German Jesuit and pro¬
fessor of Greek at Vienna, who published a critical edition of the
Greek Testament (1786, 1787), Adler, Birch, Moldenhauer, and
Woide, who collated manuscripts and prepared valuable materials
for the use of later critics. Matthsei published a valuable edition
of the New Testament, Greek and Latin (12 vols., Riga, 1782-88),
which was injured by its unfair attacks on Griesbach, but is con¬
ceded by later scholars to possess much merit.
John J. Griesbach improved upon all his predecessors in New
Testament criticism by arranging his authorities and
Griesbach. classifying them according to their age and place of
origin. He made much of the families or “ recensions ” of manu¬
scripts, a principle already recognised by Bengel and Sender, and
distributed the families into Alexandrian, Western, and Byzantine.
His Greek Testament appeared in parts at Halle and London in
1774-77, and again in 1796-1806 (2 vols. 8vo). It was also printed
in other forms. Griesbach was unquestionably a consummate critic,
and his work marks an epoch in textual criticism. He was also the
author of a critical commentary on the New Testament text, and a
work on New Testament hermeneutics.
The labours of these eminent critics met with much opposition,
and were naturally looked upon by many with grave suspicion.
The tendency of such researches seemed to unsettle the foundations
of the faith, and polemic divines of the Voetian school could not be
expected to favour or encourage them.
Among the English divines of this century who distinguished
themselves by contributions to exegetical literature we should
give a prominent place to Symon Patrick, bishop of Ely.
The greater part of his life belongs to the seventeenth
century. His principal literary work was a paraphrase and com¬
mentary on the historical and poetical books of the Old Testament,
a learned, but eminently practical and useful, exposition, in which
the meaning of the sacred writers is set forth in clear and simple
style, adapted to meet the wants of ordinary readers, and at the
same time evincing wide and thorough acquaintance with ancient
and modern writers. Patrick’s commentary was continued after
his death by William Lowth, whose exposition of the prophetical
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
701
books, first published in separate portions, was afterward joined
with Whitby’s Paraphrase and Commentary on the New Testament,
Lowman’s Apocalypse, and Arnald’s Apocrypha, the whole form¬
ing a complete commentary on the Bible, including the Old Testa¬
ment apocryphal books. William Lowth was a judicious
exegete, and his work on the Prophets is one of the best W' Lowth*
commentaries of its kind. It is not strictly a critical work, but, like
tne notes of Patrick, exhibits thorough scholarship, and furnishes a
clear and useful exposition. Whitby’s Commentary on the New
Testament first appeared in 1703, and has ever since
maintained a high place in exegetical literature. Whitby Whltby*
is noted for his opposition to Mill’s useful labours in textual criti¬
cism, and he ventured to defend the Textus Receptus as if it were
infallible. This effort, like that of Owen against Brian Walton in
the previous century, displayed much more zeal than good sense or
judgment.
Robert Lowth, son of William, and bishop of London, won a
deserved celebrity by the publication (in 1753) of his
Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews, which has been trans- Robert Lowth-
lated into English and issued in many editions. Although the
spirit and characteristics of Hebrew poetry had been pointed out
by previous writers, Lowth was the first to set them forth in clear
and convincing form, and this work marks a new epoch in the
treatment of that subject, and has a permanent value. A later and
more widely read and useful work of this distinguished prelate was
his new translation of Isaiah, with a preliminary dissertation and
notes. The design of this work, the author states, “ is not only to
give an exact and faithful representation of the words and of the
sense of the prophet, by adhering closely to the letter of the text,
and treading as nearly as may be in his footsteps; but, moreover,
to imitate the air and manner of the author, to express the form
and fashion of the composition, and to give the English reader
some notion of the peculiar turn and cast of the original.” This
design was very wrorthily executed, and the work soon obtained a
European fame. It was reprinted in many editions, and translated
by Koppe into the German language.
Probably no English commentary has had a wider circulation oi¬
ls better known than that of Matthew Henry. It is made
* Henry.
up of the substance of expository lectures which were
delivered by him through a period of many years, prepared by his
own hand as far as the Acts of the Apostles, and completed from
his manuscripts by a number of ministers. It is not a critical work,
and not strictly exegetical; but it is full of practical good sense,
702
HISTORY OF
Dodd.
Scott.
and pithy remarks which often breathe the very spirit of the sacred
writers, and always tend to edification. Of a similar spirit and
style, but less elaborate, is the Family Expositor of
Doddridge, p^p-p Doddridge. His notes and observations display
an ardent piety, a love for the truth, and a desire to profit others,
but are wanting in philological merit and discriminating judgment.
Greater ability and exegetical skill are manifested in the commen¬
tary of William Dodd, who made large use of previous
writings, both English and foreign. As an exposition of
the true sense of the Scriptures its decided merits have always been
acknowledged. Adam Clarke pronounced it the best English com¬
mentary in existence. Coke’s commentary on the Bible is substan¬
tially a reprint of the work of Dodd, and published without proper
acknowledgment. The well-known and widely circulated commen¬
tary of Thomas Scott belongs to this same class of prac¬
tical notes and observations upon the English Bible. It
has little or no value in criticism and exegesis, but, like the work
of Henry, abounds with pious reflections of a homiletical character.
The same may be said of Burkitt’s Expository Notes on the New
Testament, which has passed through many editions, and is still
widely read.
John Gill, an eminent English Baptist, was especially distin-
g iii. Chandler, guished for his rabbinical learning. His exposition of
Pearce. tbe Old anp New Testaments, in nine large octavo vol¬
umes, is a monument of industry and research, but is too diffuse to
be of practical value, and sometimes runs into spiritualizing proc¬
esses. Samuel Chandler, a dissenting minister, published a critical
history of David, a vindication of Daniel’s prophecies, a paraphrase
and commentary on Joel, and also on the Epistles to the Galatians
and Ephesians. Zachary Pearce wrote a valuable commentary on
the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles, and a reply to Woolston’s
Discourses on Miracles. James Macknight, a Scotch
divine, won distinction as an expositor by his Harmony
of the Gospels, and his new translation, paraphrase, and notes on
the Epistles. This latter work, though not of the first rank, was
the result of thirty years of labour, and is still worthy of attention
and study. George Campbell is also widely known by
his valuable translation of the Four Gospels, with pre¬
liminary dissertations and critical and explanatory notes. His
Dissertation on the Miracles, in reply to Hume, had an extensive
circulation, and was translated into several of the lan¬
guages of Europe. William Newcome is known chiefly
by his Harmony of the Gospels. He also prepared a new version
Macknight.
Campbell.
Newcome.
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
703
of Ezekiel and the Minor Prophets, with critical notes. Ilis
exegetical writings show good judgment, and have met with de¬
served commendation. Blayney, professor at Oxford, Biayney, Green,
was noted for his knowledge of Hebrew. His princi- and Weils,
pal writings are a dissertation on the Seventy Weeks of Daniel,
and a new version of Jeremiah, Lamentations, and Zechariah, with
critical and philological notes. William Green was the author of
new translations of Isaiah, the Psalms, and other poetical parts of
the Old Testament, accompanied with notes. Edward Wells, less
widely known than the writers just mentioned, published in the
early part of the eighteenth century a revised translation of the
New Testament, with a paraphrase and annotations. He was also
the author of an exposition of Daniel, and a historical geography
of the Old and New Testaments. Samuel Wesley wrote a history
of the Old and New Testaments, and a Latin commen¬
tary on the Book of Job. John Wesley, his more famous WesIey*
son, prepared and published a volume of Explanatory Notes on the
New Testament, which has been widely circulated among his fol¬
lowers, and is recognized as one of the doctrinal standards of Meth¬
odism. He gives the Authorized Version, slightly revised, and for
many of his short and suggestive comments acknowledges his great
indebtedness to Bengel’s Gnomon and Doddridge’s Family Expos¬
itor. His notes on the Old Testament are too meager to be of any
considerable value.
The devout and useful cultivation of biblical studies, indicated
by such works as those mentioned above, furnish an English Deism,
interesting evidence of the faith and piety of multi- French imidei-
. j 9 , . . r / , ity, and Ger-
tudes at a time when strong sceptical assaults were be- man Rationai-
ing made upon the doctrines of revealed religion. It ism*
was during this century that English deism reached its highest
power and passed into decline. French infidelity followed in its
wake, and led to fanaticism and political anarchy; and afterward,
at slower pace, the more refined and scholarly rationalism of Ger¬
many made its advance, and affected the religious thought of all
Protestant Christendom. To trace these currents of religious life
and thought, and note the political, philosophical, and dogmatical
discussions of this eventful period, falls not within the line of our
purpose. And yet to understand the origin of the exact and
searching methods of Scripture exegesis which were introduced in
the latter part of the eighteenth, and have been carried to still
greater perfection in the nineteenth, century, one needs to cast at
least a hasty glance over the growth of English deism, French
unbelief, and German speculative thought, which unquestionably
704
HISTORY OF
provoked and prompted a more thorough study of the Scriptures,
both in Germany and England.
We have already noticed the influence exerted by Spinoza on
Deisticai writ- religious thought (p. 694). His views on miracles re-
ers. ceived another form of presentation in Blount’s Life of
Apollonius of Tyana, in which the miracles of Christ were made to
suffer disparagement by an invidious comparison with those of the
Pythagorean philosopher. The writings of Toland and Lord
Shaftesbury aim to assert the supremacy of reason, and to ground
morality on expediency and natural right. Collins treated more
directly the interpretation of Scripture, and in his Discourse on the
Grounds and Reasons of the Christian Religion (London, 1724)
maintained that the Jewish expectation of the Messiah arose only
a short time before the birth of Jesus, and that the New Testament
citations of Old Testament Messianic prophecy are merely fanciful
accommodations of the Hebrew books, and at best mystical and
allegorical portraitures of Christian truth. The logic of this work
was to show that Christian evidences drawn from prophecy are
invalid. Woolston’s Discourses on the Miracles were another crit¬
ical assault upon the historical verity of the New Testament, and
it was therein boldly asserted that the narratives of our Lord’s
miracles were full of extravagance and unreasonable statements,
but may nevertheless be understood as figurative representations of
spiritual experience. “ The history of Jesus, as recorded in the evan¬
gelists,” says Woolston, “ is an emblematical representation of his
spiritual life in the soul of man, and his miracles are figures of his
mysterious operations. The four gospels are in no part a literal
story, but a system of mystical philosophy or theology.” 1 Matthew
Tindal laboured to show the essential perfection of natural religion,
and denied both the necessity and the possibility of a supernatural
revelation. These positions, together with much adverse criticism
of the Scripture records, were vigorously maintained in his cele¬
brated work entitled Christianity as Old as the Creation, or the
Gospel a Republication of the Religion of Nature.2 The works of
Morgan and Chubb follow much in the same line, and in a measure
supplement the arguments of Tindal. The philosophical writings
1 A Discourse on the Miracles of our Saviour, p. 65. Sixth edition. London, 1729.
2 This was not only the most important work that deism had yet produced, com*
posed with care, and bearing the marks of thoughtful study of the chief contenr
porary arguments, Christian as well as deist, but derives an interest from the circum
stance that it was the book to which more than to any other single work Bishop
Butler’s Analogy was designed as the reply. — Farrar, Critical History of Free
Thought, p. 138.
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION. 705
of Bolingbroke and Ilume tended likewise to unsettle all faith in
divine revelation.
Ihe writings of the English deists were answered by a great
number of divines of various scholarship and ability. Anti-deisticai
Chief among them were Chandler, Sherlock, Butler _ writers.
whose immortal Analogy must ever stand as one of the grandest
monuments of human thought— John Conybeare, Leland, Waterland,
and Warburton— whose celebrated work on the Divine Legation of
Moses remains to this day an invaluable help to the study of the
Pentateuch. In fact no period in the history of Christianity wit¬
nessed in so short a space such a number and variety of works on
the evidences of revealed religion as that of the rise and decline of
English deism.
I he relation of English deism to French infidelity is very obvi¬
ous. The philosophy of Descartes and Spinoza had, French unbe-
indeed, prepared the way in France as well as else- lief-
where for the progress of sceptical thought, and the sensational
philosophy of Locke, modified and adapted to the French mind by
Condillac, tended strongly to materialism and unbelief. The acute
and witty Voltaire, for three years an exile in England, appropri¬
ated such products of the deistical writers as served his purpose,
and in a superficial and flippant, but taking, style, disseminated
them with most demoralizing effect among the French people.
The encyclopaedic Diderot, and his immediate associates, the more
cultivated and philosophical Rousseau, and, later, the brilliant Vol-
ney, contributed their influence to the same destructive movement,
and the welcome which Frederick the Great gave to men of this
class, making the Prussian court at Berlin a place of refuge for
them when persecuted at home, discloses the parental relation of
French unbelief to German rationalism. In tracing the rise of the
latter, however, we need to go back a little and note the origin and
progress of other influences.
A new impulse was given to biblical studies in Germany by the
founding of the LTniversity of Halle in 1694. This was
SflPTiPr
due mainly to the influence of Spener, the father of
Pietism. The Protestant Churches had fallen into a cold, formal
orthodoxy, and the symbols and sacraments took precedence of
scriptural knowledge and personal piety. As early as 1675 Spener
had urged, in his Pia Desideria, that all Christian doctrine should
be sought in a faithful study of the Holy Scriptures rather than in
the symbols of the Church, and that the living truths of God’s
word should be brought home to the hearts of the people. Asso¬
ciated with him at Halle was A. IL Francke, who had previously
45
700
HISTORY OF
Francke.
become noted at Leipsic by his exegetical lectures. Both these
men were eminent as preachers and abundant in pulpit
ministrations. Francke’s exegetical lectures extended
over the books of the Old and New Testaments, and he published
treatises on the interpretation of Scripture, and on methods of the¬
ological study. These noble leaders of Pietism maintained that it
is the first duty of the theologian to ascertain the true meaning of
the Scriptures, not from traditional beliefs, but from a critical and
grammatical study of the original texts. “ The theological instruc¬
tion of Francke and his coadjutors in the University of Halle,”
says Hurst, “was very influential. During the first thirty years
of its history six thousand and thirty-four theologians were trained
within its walls, not to speak of the multitudes who received a
thorough academic and religious instruction in the Orphan House.
The Oriental Theological College, established in connexion with the
university, promoted the study of biblical languages, and originated
the first critical edition of the Hebrew Bible.”1
One of the most learned men of Germany was J. H. Michaelis, who
_ ^ „ was associated with Francke in establishing the Orient-
The Michaelis °
family of bibii- al Theological College of Halle, and was editor of the
cal scholars. critical Hebrew Bible above referred to. He devoted
thirty years of labour to the preparation of this work, and collated
the best printed editions and a number of Hebrew manuscripts.
Along with it was published his Philologico-Exegetical Annotations
on the Hagiography (3 vols. 4to, Halle, 1720). C. B. Michaelis,
nephew of the preceding, was professor at Halle from 1713 to 1764,
during which time he published numerous treatises on Hebrew phi¬
lology, biblical exegesis, and the various readings of the Greek
Testament. He assisted his uncle in the preparation of his Anno¬
tations on the Hagiography. His son, J. D. Michaelis, became
more famous as a theologian and biblical scholar than any other of
this celebrated faipily. He planned the expedition into the Orient
which was executed by Carsten Niebuhr, and contributed greatly
to our knowledge of the Arabian peninsula. He published gram¬
mars of the Hebrew, Chaldee, Syraic, and Arabic languages, and
various other philological treatises, together with valuable works
on history, geography, chronology, and Jewish antiquities. He
wrote an Introduction to the New Testament, and commentaries on
Ecclesiastes and First Maccabees. His greatest and best known
work is his Mosaisches Recht (6 vols., 1770-75), or Commentaries on
the Laws of Moses, of whic h an English translation has been pub¬
lished by Alexander Smith (4 vols., London, 1814). With all his
1 History of Rationalism, p. 97. New York, 1865.
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
707
greatness as a scholar and critic he imbibed many of the rational¬
istic notions of his time, and seems to have been deficient in relig¬
ious convictions and experience. He was a fair specimen of the
incipient neology, and retained the outward forms of orthodoxy,
but went not to the extremes of rationalism. John F. and John
G. Michaelis, two other members of this family, were also distin¬
guished for their labours in biblical science.
J ohn Lawrence von Mosheim, who was pre-eminent for his con¬
tributions to ecclesiastical history, and has been deserv¬
edly honoured for placing Church history on a truer Mosheim*
scientific basis than it had ever attained before, was also the author
of several sound and useful exegetical works. His exposition of
First Corinthians and the two Epistles to Timothy, his Sacred Ob¬
servations (Amst., 1721), and critical treatment of select passages
of the New Testament, evince rare powers of criticism. He
showed himself a master in nearly every department of theology.
John Benjamin Koppe, professor of theology at Gottingen, pub¬
lished numerous treatises on biblical subjects, and com¬
menced, near the close of this century, a critical edition Koppe’
of the New Testament. He lived to publish only two volumes,
embracing Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and Thessalonians. His
plan was to furnish a revised Greek text (which agrees closely with
that of Griesbach), prolegomena to each book, critical and philolog¬
ical annotations, and excursus on difficult passages. The work was
continued on the same plan by Heinrichs and Pott, the former pub¬
lishing the Acts, Colossians, Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, and the
latter the Epistles of Peter and Jude.
Probably the most distinguished name in the history of exegesis
in the eighteenth century is that of John Augustus
Ernesti, whose Institutio interpretis Novi Testamenti
(Lips., 1761), or Principles of New Testament Interpretation, has
been accepted as a standard textbook on hermeneutics by four gen¬
erations of biblical scholars. “ He is regarded,” says Hagenbach,
“ as the founder of a new exegetical school, whose principle simply
was that the Bible must be rigidly explained according to its own
language, and, in this explanation, it must neither be bribed by any
.external authority of the Church, nor by our own feeling, nor by a
sportive and allegorizing fancy — which had frequently been the case
with the mystics — nor, finally, by any philosophical system what¬
ever. He here united in the main with Hugo Grotius, who had
laid down similar principles in the seventeenth century. Ernesti
was a philologian. He had occupied himself just as enthusiastically
with the ancient classics of Rome and Greece as with the Bible,
708
HISTORY OF
and claimed that the same exegetical laws should be observed in
the one case as in the other. He was perfectly right in this re-
spect; even the Reformers wished the same thing. His error here
was, perhaps, in overlooking too much the fact that, in order to
perceive the religious truths of the Scriptures, we must not only
understand the meaning of a declaration in its relations to language
and history, but that we must also spiritually appropriate it by
feelingly transposing ourselves to it, and by seeking to understand
it from itself. Who will deny that, in order to understand the
epistles of the Apostle Paul, we must adopt from the very outset
a mode of view different from that which we would employ in
order to understand the epistles of Cicero, since the circle of ideas
of these two men is very different? Religious writings can be
perfectly understood only by an anticipating spirit, which peers
through the logical and grammatical web of the thoughts to the
depth below. . . . The principle that we must expound the Scriptures
like every other book could at least be so misapprehended that it
might be placed in the same rank with the other writings of
antiquity, and the assistance of the Holy Spirit, which is the only
guide to the depths of the Scriptures, be regarded as superfluous.
As for Ernesti personally, he was orthodox, like Michaelis and
Mosheim,. He even defended the Lutheran view of the Lord’s
Supper. And yet these men, and others of like character, are dis¬
tinguished from their orthodox predecessors, by their insisting upon
independence, by struggling for sobriety, and, if you will allow,
for dryness also. But, with all this, they were further distinguished
from their predecessors by a certain freedom and mildness of judg¬
ment which men had not been accustomed to find in theologians.
Without any desire or wish on their own part they effected a tran¬
sition to a new theological method of thought, which soon passed
beyond the limits of their own labours.” 1
Ernesti was also the author of a volume of exegetical essays
entitled Opuscula philologica-critica (Amst., 1762), and the Neue
Theologische Bibliothek (14 volumes), which greatly promoted the
interests of theological literature in Germany. The principles
so ably set forth by Ernesti were further elaborated toward the
k a g Keii cloSe °f ttlis century hJ Karl Augustus Keil, whose vari¬
ous contributions to biblical hermeneutics (comp. p. 208)
did much to prepare the way for the solid and enduring methods
of exegesis which are now generally prevalent in Germany, En¬
gland, and America. The refined and gifted Herder did much for
1 History of the Church in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries, vol. i, pp.
259-261. English translation by Hurst. New York, 1869.
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
709
the cause of biblical science by emphasising the human element in
the Scriptures. In his treatise on the Spirit of Hebrew
Poetry (Dessau, 1782) he aimed to exhibit the real Herder'
beauties, the deep poetical fervour, and glowing oriental imagery
of the Old Testament Scriptures. In other publications he traced
the influence of Parseeism on the biblical writers, expounded the
Apocalypse as having been fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem,
and dwelt with peculiar pleasure on the Epistles of James and Jude
as the productions of real brothers of the Lord Jesus. Though in¬
fluenced by the rationalism prevalent at the court of Weimar,1 his
labours in the department of biblical literature were far more use¬
ful than harmful. It was well to have attention called to the hu¬
man as well as to the divine elements in the Holy Scriptures.
Contemporaneous with the above-mentioned critics and scholars
were others of a more decided rationalistic bent, and Wolf and
both the old rigid orthodoxy and the declining Pietism Lange,
of the period met with opposing tides of thought. The philosophy
of Christian von Wolf, which was but a modification and popular
presentation of the theories of Leibnitz, introduced a disturbing
element at Halle. It found a strong opponent in Joachim Lange,
an intimate friend of Francke, who was also noted for his comments
on most of the books of the Bible. The later Pietists, revolting
from the Wolfian claims for reason, opposed to it a blind emotional
faith, which speedily deteriorated into superstitious mys- Degenerate
ticism and extravagance. Their capricious methods of Pietism,
interpretation are represented in the Berleburg Bible, which unites
a running exposition with a new translation, and assumes to set
forth the hidden spiritual sense of the Word. Such mystical trifling
with the natural sense of Scripture could not fail to provoke reac¬
tion, which might easily run to an opposite extreme. In 1735 the
Wertheim Bible appeared, the translation and notes of which were
a manifest attempt to interpret the Scriptures according to the prin¬
ciples of the Wolfian philosophy. Baumgarten, a disciple of Wolf,
and his successor at Halle, wrote several critical and exegetical
works, and prepared the way for the rise of German rationalism,
1 At the end of the last century there was one spot which became the very focus of
intellectual life. The court of Karl August, at Weimar, insignificant in political im¬
portance, was great in the history of the human mind. There were gathered most of
the mighty spirits of the golden age of German literature — Herder, Wieland, Goethe,
Schiller, Jean Paul: a constellation of intellect unequalled since the court of Ferrara
in the days of Alphonso. The influence made itself felt in the adjacent university of
Jena, and this little seminary became from that time for about twenty years, until
the foundation of Berlin, the first university in Germany. — Farrar, Critical History of
Free Thought, p. 228.
710 HISTORY OF
of which Semler, his pupil, is commonly regarded as more directly
the father.
John Solomon Semler was born and reared under the influences
of Pietism, but from early childhood showed little in-
Semier. ciiuation to adopt its peculiar dialect and methods. He
went to Halle the year before Lange died, and there received many
kind attentions from the Pietists; but he declined to follow their
counsels, and soon became the favourite scholar of Baumgarten.
Early recognising the conflict between his subjective notions and
the current dogmas of the Church, he began to distinguish between
religion and theology. One’s private religion, he fancied, might
be largely a matter of personal taste, and should be cultivated as
individual feeling and the dictates of reason prompted. In the
elaboration of his views he propounded the so-called Accommoda¬
tion theory of expounding the Scriptures (see above, p. 166), and
distinguished between what is local and temporary and what is uni¬
versal and permanent in the divine revelation. Large portions of
the Scriptures, including many entire books, were set aside as of no
authority. Observing that Samaritans, Jews, and the Septuagint
translators differed in the number of books which they accepted as
sacred, he rejected the traditional idea of an inspired canon of
Scripture, and made reason and his own judgment the test by which
to determine what was and what wa^ not inspired. Much in the
Bible was regarded as purely ephemeral, a mere accommodation to
the prejudices and barbarism of ancient times. The doctrine of
angels and demons was but an accommodation to prevailing errors.
Most of these views were set forth in Semler’s various publications
on biblical interpretation and the free use of the canon, works
abounding with sound and excellent observations, but so mixed
with pernicious errors that, in other hands, they were made instru¬
ments for the destruction of all faith in divine revelation. Semler
was not the founder of a school, but his writings gave a mighty
impulse to the critical methods of interpretation which were then
becoming current. He scattered doubts and set afloat many scep¬
tical notions. “ By the critical inquiry into which he was constant¬
ly drawn further and further,” observes Hagenbach, “he doubted
much which had hitherto stood fast and had lately passed as au¬
thentic, and threw much overboard which it was afterward believed
necessary to gather carefully up again.” 1
Semler’s beautiful piety preserved him from the evil effects of
Growth of Ra- own theories, and he himself was surprised at the
tionaiism. use others made of his critical principles. There •were
1 Hist, of the Church in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries, vol. i, p. 266.
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
711
men in Germany who were thoroughly infected with the leaven of
English deism and French infidelity, and they were not slow to
appropriate Sender’s destructive methods for the propagation of
neology and unbelief among the people. Of this class were Edel-
mann and Bahrdt, whose writings breathed the most offensive spirit
of hostility to all accepted Christian doctrine. The Allgemeine
Deutsche Bibliothek (Universal German Library), projected and
managed by Nicolai (1765-92), served as a most powerful organ
for the dissemination of rationalistic opinions. The publication of
the Wolfenbiittel Fragments by Lessing (1774-78) contributed still
more to the spread of scepticism and infidelity. They extolled the
deists, glorified human reason, and treated the miracles of the
Bible as a string of incredible myths and legends, which an intelli¬
gent age ought to reject. To the same class of publications be¬
longed Teller’s Worterbuch des neuen Testament (Lexicon of the
New Testament), which assumed to define the ideas rather than the
words of Scripture. Repent, according to this authority, means
“ to become better;” to convert is “ to restore to a righteous disposi¬
tion;” and atonement signifies “the union of men among themselves
in one religion.” It was a worthy companion of the Wertheim
translation of the Bible.
Thus it appears that at the close of the eighteenth century
rationalism was dominant over the leading minds of Sch0iariy form
Germany. Here and there a voice was heard protest- of Rationalism,
ing against these innovations in theology, and occasionally a bold
writer was suppressed by the civil power. A great diversity of
views appeared. “ The position of rationalism during the last
quarter of the eighteenth century,” says Hurst, “ was surrounded
with circumstances of the most conflicting nature. Had it been
advocated by a few more such ribald characters as Bahrdt, its career
would soon have been terminated from the mere want of respec¬
tability. But had it assumed a more serious phase, and become the
proteg'e of such pious men as Sender was at heart, there would have
been no limit to the damage it might inflict upon the cause of
Protestantism. And there were indications favourable to either
result. However, by some plan of fiendish malice, scepticism re¬
ceived all the support it could ask from the learned, the power¬
ful, and the ambitious. Here and there around the horizon could
be seen some rising literary star that, for the hour, excited uni¬
versal attention. His labour was to impugn the contents of. the
Scriptures and insinuate against the moral purity of the writers
themselves. Another candidate for theological glory appeared,
and reproached the style of the inspired record. A third came
712
HISTORY OF
vauntingly forward with his geographical discoveries and scientific
data, and raised the accommodation theory so many more stories
higher than Semler had left it, that it almost threatened to fall of
its own weight.” 1
At the close of this century we meet with a name that towers
above most others of his time, and marks an epoch in the
history of philosophical criticism. Immanuel Kant con¬
tributed little directly to biblical exegesis, but his philosophical
principles have influenced three generations of biblical critics. His
attempt to construct a system of moral interpretation has been
sufficiently noticed in a previous part of this volume (p. 167). The
relation of his philosophy to religion and the Scriptures is thus
concisely stated by Farrar: “He detected, as he supposed, innate
forms of thought in the mental structure, which form the condition
under which knowledge is possible. When he applied his system
to give a philosophy of ethics and religion, he asserted nobly the
law of duty written in the heart, but identified it with religion.
Religious ideas were regarded as true regulatively, not specula¬
tively. Revelation was reunited with reason by being resolved into
the natural religion of the heart. Accordingly, the moral effect of
this philosophy was to expel the French materialism and illuminism,
and to give depth to the moral perceptions : its religious effect was
to strengthen the appeal to reason and the moral judgment as the
test of religious truth; to render miraculous communication of
moral instruction useless, if not absurd; and to reawaken the at¬
tempt, which had been laid aside since the Wolfian philosophy, of
endeavoring to find a philosophy of religion. From this time in
German theology we find the existence of the twofold movement:
the critical one, the lawful descendant of Semler, examining the
historic revelation ; and the philosophical one, the offshoot of the
system of Kant, seeking for a philosophy of religion.”2
The development of speculative philosophy through Jacobi, Her-
bart, Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel exerted a profound influence
upon the critical minds of Germany, and affected the exegetical
style and methods of many of the great biblical scholars of the
nineteenth century. The influence of this philosophy has tended
to make the German mind intensely subjective, and has led many
theologians to view both history and doctrines in their relations
to some preconceived principle rather than in their practical bear¬
ings on human life.
1 History of Rationalism, pp. 148, 149. New York, 1865.
2 Critical History of Free Thought, pp. 229, 230.
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
713
CHAPTER IX.
EXEGESIS OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY.
The progress of biblical science during the present century has
been conspicuous above that of any former period of
its history. The century opened rich with the results ress of knowl-
of previous philological and theological research. The edge*
long-buried treasures of Hebrew and classical literature were made
accessible to all scholars. Questions of politics, philosophy, and
religion began to be sifted with a freedom and fulness of discussion
unknown in Europe before. Political revolutions and the wide¬
spread popular demand for liberty of thought and speech prompted
to the acquisition of knowledge, and gave encouragement to all
educational and literary enterprises. New departments of litera¬
ture and science were gradually developed; new inventions and
improvements on old ones greatly facilitated the means of scientific
research; geological investigation, comparative philology, the deci¬
phering of ancient monumental inscriptions, and uncovering of
entire libraries of oriental history and literature contemporary with
the Hebrew Scriptures; the exploration of Bible lands, the dis¬
covery and collation of ancient manuscripts, and the principles and
processes of textual criticism havre become so many distinct sciences,
and are now prosecuted with enthusiasm by the ablest men of
Christendom.
At the beginning of the century rationalism had well nigh taken
possession of the best minds of Germany. Eichhorn .
succeeded J. D. Michaelis at the university of Gottin- J- G- Elchaorn-
gen, and lectured and wrote extensively on oriental literature and
the exegesis of the Old and New Testaments. His Introduction to
the Scriptures and his commentary on the Apocalypse were re¬
markable for their bold rationalistic criticism. Explicit statements
of the sacred writers were set aside or explained away by the most
arbitrary assumptions. The Mosaic history was treated as consist¬
ing largely of ancient sagas or legends. Its miraculous narratives
were explained as the vivid portrayal of natural events which was
alleged to be characteristic of all ancient records of primeval and un-
historic times. A happy accident or a joyous thought was wont to
be conceived and spoken of as the appearance or the salutation of an
angel. The smoke, fire, and quaking of Mount Sinai (Exod. xix, 18)
714
HISTORY OF
were merely a fire kindled by Moses himself for the purpose of im¬
pressing the people with awe, and the happy coincidence of a terrible
thunderstorm. Eichhorn insisted that all ancient history, whether
Jewish or pagan, should be treated alike, and that all miraculous
elements should be eliminated by rational methods of interpretation.
This naturalistic method of expounding the Scriptures was car¬
ried out. in greater detail and applied with a more rigid
consistency to the gospel narratives by Paulus, professor
at Jena, and subsequently at Heidelberg. His philologico-critical
and historical commentary on the New Testament is one of the
most notable attempts on record to explain away every supernatural
event narrated in the Christian Scriptures (see above, p. 168).
Similar views were advocated about the same period by Henke,
Ammon, Wegscheider, and the Swiss rationalist, Schulthess.
About this time, also, the rationalistic criticism of the Pentateuch
Criticism of the took a notable turn, and inaugurated a controversy
Pentateuch. which has continued to the present time. The docu¬
mentary hypothesis of the composition of Genesis, propounded as
early as 1753 by Astruc, maintained that the book is made up of
twelve documents of different authorship, of which the two principal
ones are the Elohistic and Jehovistic, conspicuous for the use they
make of the divine names. A similar theory, generally known as
the fragmentary hypothesis, was set forth with much ability by
J. S. Vater in his Commentary on the Pentateuch (Halle, 1802-5).
According to this theory the whole Pentateuch consists of a num¬
ber of fragments loosely strung together. Its nucleus was a collec¬
tion of laws made in the time of David and Solomon, to which a
variety of other fragments was added between the time of Josiah
and the Babylonian exile. Essentially the same hypothesis was
maintained by Hartmann in his Linguistic Introduction to the
Study of the Books of the Old Testament (Rostock, 1818). These
older theories were gradually superseded by that commonly called
the supplementary hypothesis, which recognises one original funda¬
mental document to which various interpolations and supplements
were subsequently added. The most prominent advocates of this
theory were Stahelin, Tuch, Lengerke, Yon Bohlen, and De Wette.
In connexion with this free handling of the Pentateuch the mytli-
Mythicai inter- ical interpretation of the biblical narratives gradually
pretations. developed. The philologist Ileyne maintained that the
early history of all nations is enwrapped in myths; Semler sug¬
gested that the stories of Samson and Esther were myths, and Gabler
explained the account of the fall of man in much the same way.
The Mosaic narrative of creation was placed on a par with the
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
715
cosmogonies of the heathen world. In 1820 G. L. Bauer published
his Hebrew Mythology of the Old and New Testaments, and argued
therein that it is highly inconsistent and unphilosophical to allow
the mythical element in the early history of all other nations, and
yet deny it in the Hebrew records. Other writers put forth similar
views, and by one and another myths were conceived and classified
as historical, philosophical, and poetical, according to the manner
of their origin and development. But it was the skilful hand of
David Friedrich Strauss that gave fullest presentation The WOrk of
of the mythical interpretation, and boldly applied it to Strauss,
the gospel history. His subjection to the Hegelian philosophy, and
the consequent treatment of scriptural narratives in accord with
foregone conclusions, are apparent from the following passage at
the beginning of liis celebrated Life of Jesus: “ The divine cannot
so have happened (not immediately, not in forms so rude); or, that
which has so happened cannot have been divine. And if a recon¬
ciliation be sought by means of interpretation, it will be attempted
to prove either that the divine did not manifest itself in the manner
related, which is to deny the historical validity of the ancient Scrip¬
tures; or, that the actual occurrences wTere not divine, which is to
explain away the absolute contents of these books.”1 With this
dilemma as a governing principle, the grammatico-historical inter¬
pretation of miraculous narratives became essentially impossible,
and Strauss proceeded to construct with great learning and inge¬
nuity the mythical interpretation, which we have sufficiently out¬
lined in a former part of this work (pp. 168-170). The publication
of Strauss’ Leben Jesu (in 1835) produced a most wonderful sensa¬
tion, and marked a new epoch in biblical and theological criticism.
Scarcely a work on the gospel history has since appeared in which
there is not some notice taken of its propositions. The replies to it
from various divines were almost numberless, and constitute a spe¬
cial department of theological literature.
A few years after the work of Strauss appeared, C. II. Weisse
published his Evangelical History, critically and philo- c h We
sophically treated (2 vols., Lpz., 1838). Its method of
treating the gospel narratives, while adopting substantially the
principles of Strauss, might not improperly be called the idealistic.
Persons and events are regarded as symbolical representations of
great religious truths. John the Baptist represents the whole body
of Jewish prophets in their relations to Christ. The genealogies of
Jesus in Matthew and Luke are merely expressive of the outward
historical counexion of the old Israelitish monarchy and the Christian
1 Introduction, § 1.
716
HISTORY OP
system of salvation. In short, the whole gospel history is hut an
ideal representation of the divine process by which God reveals
himself subjectively in man through all periods of the world’s his¬
tory, and the person and character of Jesus exhibits this revelation
in highest perfection. And yet all this wonderlul portraiture of
divine truth was the product, as in the mythical theory, of the
imagination and loving devotion of the followers of Jesus, upon
whom his personal excellence and magnetic power as a healer of
diseases had made a profound impression.
This philosophical method of developing history out of the inner
religious consciousness of an imaginative and uncritical
BumoBaur. age was carrjed out to even a greater extreme by Bruno
Baur in his Critique of John’s Gospel (1840), and his three volumes
on the Synoptic Gospels (1841-42). He boldly denied the existence
of Messianic expectations at the time of Jesus’ birth, and in the
same reckless and arbitrary way assumed to set aside any statements
of the gospel history which appeared inconsistent with his specu¬
lative theories.
The founder of what is commonly known as the new Tubingen
_ _ „ . school of theology was F. C. Baur, who, before the
the Tubingen appearance of Strauss’ Life of Jesus, had attacked the
authenticity of some of the books of the New Testa¬
ment. In 1835 he published. a treatise on the Pastoral Epistles in
which he maintained that Galatians, Corinthians, and Romans were
the only genuine productions of the Apostle Paul. In 1845 ap¬
peared his work on Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ, and in 1847
his Critical Examination of the Canonical Gospels. In these and
other works of similar character Baur endeavoured to show that
the New Testament books were polemical documents written in the
interest of different factions of the early Church. He especially
assumed to discover in these documents a hostility between the
Petrine and Pauline parties. These parties continued their antag¬
onism until the middle of the second century, when the Petrine or
Judaic faction yielded some of its rigidity, and by mutual conces¬
sions the two parties became united in one catholic Church. Other
theologians belonging to the Tubingen school, and agreeing with
Baur in his main line of argument, though arriving at conclusions
somewhat different from each other, are Edward Zeller, Albert
Schwegler, Kostlin, Hilgenfeld, and Yolkmar. These writers, follow¬
ing the Hegelian philosophy, disallow any truly miraculous events in
the gospel history, regard Christianity as an offshoot of Judaism,
and deny the authenticity of all the books of the New Testament
except the four Pauline epistles named above.
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
717
The rationalistic school of French critics has been led in recent
years by such men ns Reville, Scherer, Pecaut, Rouge- French critical
mont, and Colani. More famous than any of these is sch001* ‘
Ernest Renan, whose Life of Jesus (Paris, 1863) is a brilliant por¬
traiture of the gospel narrative according to naturalistic principles.
The man Jesus lived, and did many extraordinary things, but was a
most susceptible Jewish enthusiast, who gradually became possessed
with the idea that he was to be the chosen Redeemer of Israel. His
disciples participated in his magnetic enthusiasm, and, after his
death, magnified his work, and constructed out of current legends
and their own imagination the marvellous stories which we now find
in the gospel records.
Such bold and reckless criticism could not fail to call out earnest
af.d powerful answers, and there have not been want- German Ra-
ing, during the progress of the century, men of ample tionaiism pro¬
learning and ability to meet the new issues and defend thorough131 En¬
tile faith of the Church. The entire rationalistic move- vestifiation-
ment in biblical criticism, from Sender onward, served to develop a
more thorough and scientific treatment of the inspired writings
than they had ever before received. Scholars of all parties were
led to examine afresh the earliest sources of history, and to studv
with strictest care the original texts of the Bible and all questions
bearing on their genuineness and authenticity.
The man who more than any other initiated a reaction against
the rationalism current at the beginning of this cen-
. n i ) • i f* j_i n c p Schleiermacher.
tury was bchieiermacher, one or the hrst professors of
the University of Berlin (1810). And yet Schleiermacher was far
from orthodox in his teaching. He was neither strictly evangel¬
ical nor rationalistic, but combined in himself elements of both.
“ Gifted with an acute and penetrating intellect, capable of grap¬
pling with the highest problems of philosophy and the minutest
details of criticism, he could sympathize with the intellectual move¬
ment of the old rationalism; while his fine moral sensibility, the
depth and passionateness of his sympathy, the exquisite delicacy of
his taste, and the brilliancy of his imagination, were in perfect har¬
mony with the literary and aesthetic revival which was commenc¬
ing. German to the very soul, he possessed an enthusiastic sympa¬
thy with the great literary movements of his age, philosophical,
classical, or romantic.” 1 His most useful service was to expose the
fallacy that religion is attainable by reason, or is any way depen¬
dent on culture. He showed that vital piety is a matter of the
heart, and consists in the consciousness of God in the soul, and of
1 Farrar, Critical History of Free Thought, p. 242.
718
HISTORY OF
absolute dependence upon him. This doctrine was a potent anti¬
dote to the current rationalism which would bring everything in
religion and theology to the test of reason. Schleiermacher’s prin¬
cipal works are devoted to dogmatic and practical theology. But
he published a commentary on the Epistles to Timothy (1807), and
lectured on hermeneutics and biblical introduction. In his methods
of interpretation he moved much in the ways of the rationalists.
Ilis doctrine of inspiration was loose, and his view of miracles
doubtful. He treated the Old Testament Scriptures as having no
divine authority, and as being important chiefly because of their
historical relations to Christianity. His disciples, accordingly,
branched off into different schools, and in their attitude toward
evangelical doctrine were negative or positive, or followed a middle
course between the two, and each school could appeal in defence $f
its positions to the teachings of the master whom they all honoured.
Schleiermacher founded no school of theology, but he kindled an
influence that affected all schools. “ Whether we view him,” says
Farrar, “in his own natural gifts and susceptibilities; in the aim of
his life; in his mixture of reason and love, of philosophy and criti¬
cism, of enthusiasm and wisdom, of orthodoxy and heresy; or re¬
gard the transitory character of his work, the permanence of his
influence, Church history offers no parallel to him since the days
of Origen.”1
In connexion with Schleiermacher we should also mention the
celebrated Neander, the father of modern Church liis-
Neander. .
tory, whose more profound religious experience and
more evangelical tone of expression went far toward counteracting
the progress of rationalism. When the Prussian government pro¬
posed to forbid the introduction of Strauss’ Life of Jesus into its
dominion Neander strenuously opposed the measure, and urged
that works of that kind must be met and nullified, not by force,
but by argument. In 1837 he published his Life of Jesus Christ,
which was, to a great extent, a reply to the Tubingen professor.
This work has, from the time of its appearance, held a high place
in exegetical literature. It treats the alleged difficulties of the
gospel narratives with a candour which commands respect and
admiration. Neander’s earlier work on the Planting and Train¬
ing of the Christian Church is also a valuable contribution to
the exposition of the New Testament. He also wrote practical
commentaries on the Epistle to the Philippians, the Epistle of
James, and the First Epistle of John. Most of his works have been
translated into English.
1 Critical History of Free Thought, pp. 243, 244.
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
719
In critical tact arid exegetical ability William M. L. De Wette
probably stands unsurpassed by any biblical scholar of
modern times. Ilis* views and critical methods were DeWette*
formed under the influence of such theological teachers as Paulus,
Gabler, and Griesbach, and are essentially rationalistic. He re¬
jected, however, the naturalistic method of explaining the biblical
miracles, and anticipated Strauss in many of the prominent positions
of the mythical interpretation ; but he showed greater regard for the
religious element of Scripture, and never indulged in light and dis¬
respectful insinuations hostile to its divine character and authority.
In his Introductions to the Old and New Testaments he subjected
the sacred books to the keenest scrutiny, condensing a vast amount
of material into small space, and exhibiting in the arrangement and
construction of his work the hand of a master. His commentary on
the Psalms has ever been esteemed as a model of exegetical taste
and judgment, and has been issued in several editions. His new
translation of the Bible is conceded by eminent judges to be one of
the most finished and accurate versions which has ever been made
in any language. His crowning work was his condensed Exegetical
Handbook of the New Testament, in which his exquisite taste and
remarkable exegetical tact appear in highest perfection. Despite
the rationalism everywhere apparent, one cannot but be deeply
impressed with the skill and ability of the writer. “ One thing, at
least,” says Stuart, “ can be truly said of De Wette as a commen¬
tator, especially as he appears in his latest works of interpretation,
this is, that he rarely introduces anything but the simple principles
of exegesis and philology in order to establish his views of the
meaning of Scripture. All creeds and confessions are left out of
sight, and the text, the context, and tenor of discourse, and peculi¬
arities of idiom, and matters of antiquity that have respect to
various objects, opinions, and circumstances, are ever resorted to as
the only reliable guides on which an interpreter can depend. Im¬
partially, for the most part, has he dealt with all these exegetical
subsidiaries. And that he brings to the decision of any exegetical
question a rare skill in detecting the nicer shades of language, a
highly cultivated aesthetical feeling, and great discrimination in
judging of the real and logical course of thought, no intelligent
reader of him can deny or even doubt.”1
Gottfried Friedrich Liicke was an intimate friend of De Wette,
and shared largely in his theological opinions. He was ^
professor of theology at Bonn, and subsequently at Got¬
tingen. Besides numerous valuable articles in various German
1 Bibliotheca Sacra for 1848, pp. 264, 265.
720
HISTORY OF
periodicals he wrote a treatise on New Testament hermeneutics,
and an elaborate series of works on the writings of J ohn. He was
a most learned and skilful exegete, and worthy of the love and
friendship of men like Schleiermacher and De Wette.
Many other exegetes, belonging essentially to the critical and
philological school of De Wette, flourished during the first half of
The Bosemniii- our century. Among these the two Rosenmullers at-
lers. tained much distinction, although in exegetical skill
and critical acuteness they were much inferior to De Wette. John
G. Rosemniiller was a popular preacher and a theologian of inde¬
fatigable literary activity. Among his numerous publications his
History of Biblical Interpretation in the Christian Church (5 vols.,
1795-1814), and his Scholia on the New Testament, attained a well-
deserved celebrity. The former work brings the history of inter¬
pretation down to the time of the Reformation ; his Scholia are
philological and simple, but not of a high order. E. F. C. Rosen-
miiller, son of the preceding, was distinguished for his attainments
in oriental languages, and his Scholia on the Old Testament (23 vols.,
Lpz., 1788-1835). Ilis proficiency in Semitic philology, extensive
knowledge of the Orient, and general good judgment, combined to
make him an expositor of no small merit. His larger Scholia make
too prolix a work for the ordinary student. A large proportion of
it is a compilation of the opinions of others, and too often the reader
is at a loss to know what were the views of the author himself.
The compendium of this work (6 vols., Lpz., 1828-36), made by
Lechner under the supervision of the author, is confined mainly to
the explanation of the Scripture text, and is more convenient and
useful.
Less evangelical in spirit, but more exact in the treatment of
grammatical questions, and more independent in its mode of hand¬
ling the Scriptures, is Maurer’s Grammatico-critical Com-
Maurer. 0 1
mentary on the Old Testament (4 vols., Lpz., 1835-47).
The work abounds throughout with references to the Hebrew gram¬
mars of Gesenius and Ewald. The notes on the Pentateuch and
the historical books, however, are too brief to be satisfactory, and
the author exhibits no proper appreciation of the divine element in
the Scriptures. The fourth volume, embracing Job, Ecclesiastes,
and Canticles, were written by Augustus Heiligstedt.
A later and more complete critical commentary on the Old Testa-
oid Test Exe ment> an(^ more closely corresponding to De Wette’s
peticai Hand- New Testament Handbook, is the joint work of Knobel,
Thenius, Bertheau, Hirzel, J. Olshausen, and Hitzig,
entitled Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum alten Testament
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
721
(16 vols., Lpz., 1838-61; several subsequent editions). As is always
apparent in such works, the authors vary in merit and ability, but
they all exhibit thorough training in grammar and philology, and
discuss obscure and difficult words and texts with the greatest crit¬
ical acumen. Besides his contributions to this Old Testament Hand¬
book, Knobel wrote a commentary on Ecclesiastes (1836), a work
on Hebrew Prophecy (2 vols., 1837), and a learned treatise on the
genealogical tables of Genesis (1850). Hitzig has also published a
critical commentary on the Psalms (revised ed., 2 vols., 1863-65), and
a history of Israel (1869), both coldly and extremely rationalistic.
Leonhard Bertholdt, a prominent representative of the same ra¬
tionalistic school of critics, flourished during the first
quarter of the century. His chief productions are a com- Bertholdt-
mentary on Daniel (2 vols., Erlangen, 1806-8), and a Historico-critical
Introduction to the Canonical and Apocryphal Books of the Old and
New Testaments. Caesar von Lengerke’s commentaries
on Daniel (Konigsb., 1835) and the Psalms (1847) exhibit Lengerke*
the same spirit, but in critical and philological matters are worthy
of commendation. The exegetical writings of Kuinoel (C. G.
Kiihnol) evince notable tact and ability, and consist of
new translations (with annotations) of Hosea, the Messi- Kumoel-
anic prophecies, and the Psalms, and commentaries on the historical
books of the New Testament (many editions) and the Epistle to the
Hebrews (Lpz., 1831). In expounding the miracles Kuinoel inclines
to the naturalistic method of Eichhorn and Paulus.
Among the great Hebraists, whose labours gave a new impulse
to the cause of Old Testament philology, no name stands
higher than that of William Gesenius. At the age of Gesemus*
twrenty-four he became professor of theology at Halle, and in the
same year published the first volume of his Hebrew-German Lexi¬
con of the Old Testament (1810). The second volume appeared in
1812. NewT and revised editions of this work were issued in 1823,
1828, and often subsequently, and a Latin edition, almost a new
and independent production, appeared in 1833. But his greatest
work in this department was his Thesaurus philologicus criticus
Linguae Hebraeae et Chaldseae Yeteris Testamenti, on which he
was engaged at the time of his death (1842), and which was com¬
pleted by his friend and colleague, Roediger. These publications,
along with his Hebrew Grammar, which has appeared in numerous
editions and translations, opened a new era in the cultivation of
Old Testament literature. The Hebrew Lexicon wras translated
into English by Christopher Leo (Camb., 1825), by J. W. Gibbs
(Andover, 1824), and by E. Robinson (Boston* 1836); and English
46
722.
HISTORY OF
translations of the Hebrew Grammar have been made by Stuart,
Conant, and Davies. Besides several other works on Hebrew and
oriental literature, Gesenius wrote a philological, critical, and
historical commentary on Isaiah, with an accompanying transla¬
tion in German (Lpz., 1821). This commentary is especially valu¬
able for its able philological and archaeological discussions. It
belongs, however, to the rationalistic school of exegesis. In all his
works Gesenius exhibits thorough and accurate scholarship, diligent
and painstaking research, and a discriminating use of the ample
materials at his command.
Scarcely less distinguished as a Semitic and biblical scholar was
Georg Heinrich August Ewald. Born at Gottingen in
1803, he was educated at the gymnasium and univer¬
sity of his native town, and in his twentieth year, on leaving the
university, he published his first work, Die Komposition der Gene¬
sis kritische untersucht, a treatise which long held a respectable
place among critical dissertations on the first book of the Bible.
His Arabic and Hebrew grammars, which have been published in
larger and smaller forms, and in many editions, gave a new impulse
to all studies in that department of oriental research. His transla¬
tion and exposition of the Poetical Books of the Old Testament,
and also of the Old Testament Prophets, evinced a profound ac¬
quaintance with the Hebrew language, great critical acumen and
power of original investigation, but have never been accepted as
either safe in method or sound in exegesis. He also wrote on the
Apocalypse (1828), the Synoptic Gospels (1850), the Epistles of
Paul (1857), the writings of John (1861), Hebrews and the General
Epistles (1870), and a vast number of important articles in various
German periodicals. His History of the People of Israel (Ge-
schichte des Volkes Israel, 7 vols.; English translation, 7 vols.) is in
many respects his masterpiece. For critical and philological dis¬
cussions, original research, and numerous suggestions of unquestion¬
able value, this work must long hold a high place among the most
important contributions of this century to the study of the Old
Testament. But with all evangelical scholars Ewald’s arbitrary
methods of dislocating and rearranging the sacred books will be re¬
garded as unscientific, violent, and fanciful.
In 1843 Hermann Hupfeld succeeded Gesenius in the University
of Halle, and became noted as one of the most learned
Hupfeid. Hebraists of Europe. His most important contribution
to biblical literature is his translation and exposition of the Psalms
(4 vols., Gotha, 1855-62), a work of vast learning, enriched with a
masterly arrangement and use of exegetical material drawn from
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
720
ancient and modern commentators both Jewish and Christian. In
many passages he opposes the views of ITengstenberg and Ewald.
Andreas Hoffmann also deserves mention in connexion
with Gesenius, as a Semitic scholar, whose lectures on
Hebrew Antiquities and Old Testament exegesis contributed much
to the advancement of biblical science.
The German evangelical school of interpreters includes men of
different shades of opinion, from the rigidly orthodox, TbeoidTubm-
like those of the old Tubingen school, to divines of a gen SchooL
free critical spirit, intent, like Neander, to know and maintain es¬
sential truth. G. C. Storr, at the beginning of the century, was
the leading representative of what is known as the old Tubingen
school. He aimed to check the growth of rationalism by a purely
scriptural teaching, but his method was unscientific in that it failed
to give due prominence to the organic unity of the Bible, and
rested too largely on isolated texts. He published, in connexion
with Flatt, an Elementary Course of Biblical Theology (English
translation, Andover, 1836), and was author of a commentary on
the Hebrews (Tiibingen, 1809). The two brothers, John F. and
Karl C. Flatt, belong to the same school, and wrote several useful
expository treatises. Steudel and C. F. Schmid, later representa¬
tives of this school, adopted somewhat freer methods, and are sup¬
posed to have been influenced, to some extent, by the views of
Schleiermacher.
ITengstenberg, professor of theology at Berlin, was recognised
for almost half a century as one of the staunchest de- Heno.stenbero.
fenders of orthodoxy. His principal exegetical works
are Contributions to an Introduction to the Old Testament (3 vols.,
Berlin, 1831-39), in which he ably defends the genuineness of the
Pentateuch, Christology of the Old Testament (an elaborate com¬
mentary on the Messianic prophecies), commentaries on the Psalms,
Ecclesiastes, Ezekiel, the Gospel and Revelation of John, and dis¬
quisitions on the genuineness of Daniel and Isaiah, the history of
Balaam, and the Books of Job, Isaiah, and Solomon’s Song. He
was a man of decided ability and great learning, but often need¬
lessly dogmatic and supercilious in setting forth his views. Most
of his works have been translated into English, and are greatly
prized by evangelical divines. Closely attached to Ilengstenberg,
and of the same exegetical school, was Havernick, whose Havernick
Introduction to the Old Testament, and commentaries on
Daniel and Ezekiel, occupy a high place in biblical literature.
Frederick Bleek was a pupil of Schleiermacher, De Wette, and
Neander, and in 1829 became professor of theology at the University
724
HISTORY OF
of Bonn. His elaborate commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews
(3 vols., Berlin, 1828-40) placed him in the front rank
of biblical exegetes, and in his Contributions to the
Criticism of the Gospels (1846) he showed himself a powerful oppo¬
nent of the Tubingen rationalists, and ably defended the authen¬
ticity of the Gospel of John. His Introductions to the Old and
New Testaments were edited and published after his death by J. F.
Bleek and A. Kamphausen, and rank among the most valuable
works of their kind. Other posthumous publications are his Com¬
mentary on the Synoptic Gospels, edited by Holtzman, and Lec¬
tures on Revelation, edited by Hossbach (1862). His works on
Biblical Introduction, and his Lectures on the Apocalypse, have
been translated into English.
Other distinguished exegetes of this period were Umbreit, pro-
umbreit, mi- lessor at Heidelberg, whose expositions embrace the
raann, etc. poetical and prophetical books of the Old Testament,
and the Epistle to the Romans; Ullmann, of the same university,
whose work on the Sinlessness of Jesus has become a classic in
apologetical literature; Otto Yon Gerlach, whose commentary on
the Old and New Testaments is a popular and practical exposition
consisting of brief annotations, and admirably adapted to the use
of unlearned readers; Usteri, a Swiss divine, whose works on John’s
Gospel and Paul’s System of Doctrine, and commentary on Gala¬
tians, exhibit great keenness of investigation ^combined with accu¬
rate scholarship; Hug, an eminent Roman Catholic theologian,
whose principal contribution to biblical literature is an Introduction
to the New Testament, a work of learning and ability which hns
been translated into English and French; Schleusner, whose Lexicon
of the Septuagint Version (5 vols., Lips., 1821) remains without a
rival; Karl F. A. Fritzsche, whose commentaries on Matthew and
Mark, and especially on Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (3 vols.,
Halle, 1836-43), are pre-eminent for critical and philological acute¬
ness ; and Baumgarten-Orusius, whose exegetical writings treat
most of the books of the New Testament.
Probably no German theologian of modern times exerted a wider
Thoiuck influence for good than Tholuck, who was theological
professor at Halle from 1826 to the time of his death
(1877). He was master of many languages, and almost a prodigy
of learning. His exegetical works consist of a practical exposition
of the Psalms, learned and comprehensive commentaries on the
Sermon on the Mount, the Gospel of John, and the Epistles to the
Romans and the Hebrews. They have been translated into English
and widely circulated. His exegesis is marked by a devout regard
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
725
for the Holy Scriptures, a profound theological insight, a clear per¬
ception of the writer’s scope and plan, and a wealth of learned illus¬
tration drawn from very wide and varied fields of research. His
own deep and beautiful religious experience enabled him, like
Chrysostom, to apprehend as by intuition “ the mind of the Spirit.”
More mystical in tone, but similarly profound and comprehensive
in his treatment of Scripture, was Rudolf Stier, familiar
to all evangelical scholars by his admirable exposition
of the Words of the Lord Jesus. This work is a minute and ex¬
haustive commentary on all the sayings of Jesus as preserved in
the Gospels, and, though notably diffuse, is remarkable for its rich¬
ness of thought, manifold beauties of expression, and deep devo¬
tional spirit. To this he subsequently added the Words of the
Angels.1 He also wrote on Isaiah, Proverbs, the Epistles to the
Ephesians and Hebrews, and those of James and Jude. In connex¬
ion with Theile he published a very convenient and valuable Poly¬
glot Bible, in which the Old Testament is given in the Hebrew,
Septuagint, Vulgate, and Luther’s German in parallel columns, and
the New Testament in Greek, with the V ulgate, German, and Au¬
thorized English versions.
Hermann Olshausen was of much the same spirit and method as
Stier. Accepting the Bible as God’s word, he aimed to
a o Olshausen*
penetrate to the innermost sense, and gather up the di¬
vine thoughts of the Spirit. His mystical tendency led him at times
too far from the path of sound criticism, but his expositions as a
whole are well worthy of the hearty reception and extensive use
they have obtained. His great work is a commentary on the New
Testament, which he did not live to finish. The exposition of
Philippians, the Pastoral Epistles, and Peter, James, and Jude was
subsequently completed by Augustus Weisinger, and that of He¬
brews and the Epistles and Revelation of John by Ebrard, who has
also written an able work on the Gospel History.2
M. Baumgarten of the University of Rostock has published a
very full work on the Acts of the Apostles, which real- Baumgarten
ly forms a history of the Apostolic Church, and opposes and p^pp*-
with vigour the rationalistic theories of Baur and Zeller of the
Tubingen school. It has been translated into English (3 vols.,
1 Stier’s Words of the Lord Jesus, translated into English by Pope, has been pub¬
lished in Edinburgh (8 vols., 1855-58), and a revised edition, including the Words
of the Angels, by Strong and Smith. New York, 3 vols., 1864.
2 Olshausen’a Commentary and Ebrard’s work on Hebrews and the Epistles of John
have been published in Clark’s Foreign Theol. Library, and, in a revised and improved
form, as far as the end of Hebrews, by A. C. Kendrick, 6 vols. New York, 1856-58.
726
HISTORY OF
Edinb., 1854), and is a fitting companion of Neander’s Planting
and Training of the Christian Church. F. A. Philippi, of the same
university, is the author of a very able critical and theological Com¬
mentary on the Epistle to the Romans, which has also been pub¬
lished in an English translation in Clark’s Foreign Theological
Library.
The grammatical and philological exposition of the New Testa¬
ment is greatly indebted to the labours of George Ben-
Winer* edict Winer, whose Grammar of the Idioms of the New
Testament was first published in 1822, and has passed through
many improved editions and translations (best Eng. ed., Andover,
1874). It called attention to the precision of the language of the
New Testament writers, checked the lawless treatment of its idiom
and diction then widely prevalent, and inaugurated a more thor¬
ough and scientific exegesis of the Christian Scriptures. This work
has been ably supplemented but not superseded by Alexander Butt-
mann’s Grammar of the New Testament Greek, (Eng. trans. by
Thayer, Andover, 1873). Winer also published a grammar of
the Biblical and Targumic Chaldee, a Hebrew and Chaldee Lexi¬
con, and a condensed but comprehensive Biblical Dictionary (Real-
worterbuch), all -which have received deserved commendation.
The Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
by II. A. W. Meyer is an admirable complement of
H* A- W-Meyer* Winer’s New Testament Grammar, and a noble illustra¬
tion of its principles. The first part of Meyer’s work appeared in
1832, and to the completion and perfection of it he devoted his best .
years and ability, making additions and alterations up to the time
of his death (1873). At his invitation the commentary on Thessa-
lonians and Hebrews was prepared by Liinemann (who also edited
the seventh edition of Winer’s Grammar), that on the Pastoral and
Catholic Epistles by Huther, and that on the Apocalypse by Diister-
dieck. Among all New Testament exegetes Meyer stands unri¬
valled. In penetration and critical ability, in philological accuracy
and rare exegetical tact, he is scarcely inferior to De Wette, while
in fulness of treatment and repeated painstaking revision Meyer’s
work has great advantage over the more condensed manual of
De Wette. It is pre-eminently critical and exegetical, and does
not aim at theological and homiletical disquisition. Each chapter
is prefaced by a lucid statement of the evidence for and against the
various readings of the original text, and the exegesis which fol¬
lows keeps closely to the grammatical and philological presentation
of the sacred writer’s thought. In his theory of the origin of the
written gospels, and on some other points, Meyer leans toward
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
727
rationalism, and in spiritual insight lie is inferior to Stier; but his
tone is always reverent, and he belongs essentially to the evangel¬
ical school of interpreters.1 An English translation of his entire
New Testament commentary (except Revelation) has been pub¬
lished by the Clarks of Edinburgh.
Among these later biblical scholars of Germany, Karl Auberlen is
well known by his able volume on Daniel and the Reve- Auberlen and
lation (Basel, 1854), which has been also published in an Kurtz-
English and a French translation. J. H. Kurtz, professor of theology
at Dorpat, is author of an exceedingly valuable contribution to the
exposition of the Pentateuch under the title of History of the Old
Covenant (Eng. trans. by Edersheim, 3 vols., Phila., 1859). A most
excellent and convenient series of commentaries on the Old Testa¬
ment is that prepared by Karl F. Keil and Franz De- Keil and De_
litzsch. The work is eminently critical and exegetical, utzsch-
and deals fully and fairly with all the great questions which the
modern higher criticism has raised. The learned authors have long
•been known as representative exegetes of the evangelical school,
and have furnished numerous other contributions to biblical litera¬
ture besides the commentaries belonging to this series. English
translations of most of them have been published in Clark’s Foreign
Theological Library.
Another series of commentaries still more comprehensive in its
plan is the immense Biblework recently issued under Lange>s Bibie-
the editorial supervision of J. P. Lange. It aims to be work-
a complete critical, exegetical, and homiletical commentary on the
Old and New Testaments. Lange himself contributed to this great
work more than any other writer. His principal assistants were
J. J. Van Oosterzee, Otto Zochler, C. B. Moll, W. J. Schroeder,
Fay, Bahr, Nagelsbach, Schmoller, Kleinert, Lechler, Kling, Braune,
and Fronmiiller. The work has been translated into English by
Philip Schaff, assisted by a large number of American scholars, and
published in a greatly enlarged form in twenty-five octavo volumes,
including one on the Apocrypha, by E. C. Bissel (New York, 1864—
80). It is by far the most learned and comprehensive commentary
1 In the preface to the fourth edition of his Commentary on Romans (1865) Meyer
wrote : “ We older men have seen the day when Dr. Paulus and his devices were in
vogue; he died without leaving a disciple behind him. We passed through the tem¬
pest raised by Strauss some thirty years ago ; and with what a sense of solitariness
might its author now celebrate his jubilee ! We saw the constellation of Tubingen
arise, and, even before Baur departed hence, its lustre had waned. A fresh and firmer
basis for the truth which had been assailed, and a more complete apprehension of the
truth — these were the blessings which the waves left behind; and so will it be when
the present surge has passed away.”
728
HISTORY OF
on the whole Bible which has appeared in modern times. Schaffi
has also editorial supervision of a popular commentary on the New
Testament, by English and American scholars of various evangelical
denominations, several volumes of which have already appeared.
F. Godet, a French biblical scholar and professor of theology at
Godet and Neuchatel, has published commentaries on the Gospels
Luthardt. 0f Luke and John and the Epistle to the Romans, which
have been translated into English and received everywhere with
great favour. His exegesis is perspicuous, fresh, and full of sug¬
gestion, but needlessly diffuse. The elaborate work of Luthardt
on John’s Gospel (Eng. trans., 3 vols., Edinb.) is rigidly orthodox,
and treats the difficult questions connected with the fourth gospel
in great detail and with ample learning.
A large number of excellent and useful commentaries by English
writers have appeared during the present century. Next to Mat¬
thew Henry’s exposition no work of similar scope and magnitude
has had a wider circulation or is better known than the
Adam ciaike. commen£ary Gf Adam Clarke. It is marked by a num¬
ber of eccentricities of opinion, but displays a vast amount of learn¬
ing, and is a monument of the tireless industry of its author. It has
especially served a useful purpose among the Methodist ministry and
people, by whom it has been chiefly used. Less critical and learned,
Benson and but more practical, is the commentary of Joseph Benson.
Watson. Xt is, how ever, largely a compilation from Poole’s Anno¬
tations. Richard Watson’s exposition of Matthew, Mark, and other
portions of the Scriptures (Lond., 1833), evinces a talent for sim¬
ple, yet thorough and profound, exegesis superior to that of Clarke
and Benson, and remains a noble fragment of his projected exposi¬
tion of the entire New Testament. Ebenezer Henderson’s com-
Hendersonand mentaries on Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Minor
Bloomfield. Prophets have commanded the attention of the learned
world, and entitle him to a place among the ablest biblical exposi¬
tors. Bloomfield’s Recensio Synoptica (8 vols., Lond., 1826-28), and
Greek Testament with English notes (1829, and often), served a
useful purpose in their day, and contain much judicious exposition,
but they have been superseded by later and more accurate wrorks of
the same class. John Kitto, one of the most eminent
biblical scholars of England, greatly promoted the in¬
terests of sacred learning by his Pictorial Bible, histories of Pales¬
tine, and Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature. The last-named w^ork,
which has been issued in a greatly enlarged form under the editor¬
ship of W. L. Alexander, gave a new and mighty impulse to biblical
studies in England and America. It is scarcely too much to say
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
729
that Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, and M’Clintock and Strong’s
Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature,
are the outgrowth and fruitage of the encyclopaedic labours in bib¬
lical science inaugurated by John Kitto. Kitto also projected and
edited for many years the Journal of Sacred Literature, and wrote
a very popular series of expository dissertations entitled Daily
Bible Illustrations. Thomas Hartwell Horne is widely
and favourably known by his Introduction to the Critical Horne-
Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, which has passed
through numerous editions, and has been, in the course of years,
greatly improved and enlarged, especially by Ayre and Tregelles.
It has long commanded in English biblical literature the position
of a standard work, and has inspired and cultivated in thousands a
taste for critical and exegetical studies. Samuel David¬
son has also added lustre to British scholarship by his
treatise on Sacred Hermeneutics and Biblical Criticism, Introduc¬
tions to the Old and New Testaments, English translation of
Ftirst’s Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, and other valuable works.
His Introduction to the Old Testament and some of his other writ¬
ings are notably rationalistic.
Among the more recent English exegetes Henry Alford holds a
conspicuous place. His chief work is a critical edition
of the Greek Testament, with a digest of various read¬
ings, learned prolegomena, and copious philological and exegetical
notes (5 vols., London, 1851-61). The author was fluctuating and
somewhat inconsistent in several parts of his exposition, and suc¬
cessive editions show numerous changes of opinion, but his work as
a whole has gathered up in convenient form a large amount of
valuable material, and has made judicious use of the labours of
German critics as well as those of other exegetes, both ancient and
modern. The work has had an extensive circulation, and has met
a wide- felt want. Webster and Wilkinson have also published an
edition of the Greek Testament with grammatical and exegetical
notes. It is less elaborate and learned than Alford’s, and is adapted
for learners rather than the learned.
The liberal views of Alford on inspiration and some other topics
probably had an influence in leading Christopher Wordsworth
Wordsworth to prepare his more strictly orthodox edi¬
tion of the Greek Testament with notes (4 parts, London, 1856-61).
Lie has also extended his exposition over the whole Bible (6 vols.,
1864-72). He exhibits a profound veneration for the Scriptures as
the word of God, and furnishes many excellent comments. But
his work as a whole is disproportionate, makes much use of the
730
HISTORY OF
Ellicott.
fathers, is often fanciful, arid avoids difficulties on which such a
work is expected to throw light. Far more profound and satisfac¬
tory are the exegetical productions of Trench, whose
Notes on the Miracles and Parables of our Lord are
models of biblical exposition. He has also written a brief commen¬
tary on the second chapter of Matthew, a volume of most valuable
exegetical essays entitled Studies in the Gospels, a Commentary
on the Epistles to the Seven Churches of Asia, and the best work
yet extant on the Synonymes of the New Testament. He combines
in his expositions a discriminating use of the fathers, the mediaeval
exegetes, and later writers, with the best results of the most recent
criticism, and touches every point with the hand of a master.
No finer specimens of critical and grammatical commentary ex¬
ist in the English language than those of Charles J.
Ellicott on the Epistles of Paul. His exegesis is based
upon a critically revised text (substantially that of Tischendorf),
and proceeds with steady and deliberate care to set forth the exact
meaning of the apostle according to the most approved methods of
grammatico-historical interpretation. No difficulty is evaded or
overlooked; no peculiarity of language or construction escapes his
notice. “ I have in all cases striven,” he says, “ humbly and rever¬
ently to elicit from the words their simple and primary meaning.
Where that has seemed at variance with historical or dogmatical
deductions — where, in fact, exegesis has seemed to range itself on
one side, grammar on the other — I have never failed candidly to
state it; where it has confirmed some time-honoured interpretation
I have joyfully and emphatically cast my small mite into the great
treasury of sacred exegesis, and have felt gladdened at being able
to yield some passing support to wiser and better men than my¬
self.” 1 This eminent divine has written on all the epistles of Paul
except Romans and Corinthians, and is also favourably known from
other publications, especially his Hulsean Lectures on the Life of
Christ.
Of very much the same order and style are the recent commen¬
taries of J. B. Lightfoot on the Epistles of Paul. They
are accompanied, however, with learned introductions
and elaborate discussions of various critical and historical questions
connected with the several epistles. The waiter is a sound and
judicious expositor, and has announced his purpose to furnish a
complete edition of Paul’s epistles on the same plan as
those (Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon)
already published. Professor John Eadie’s commentaries on the
1 Preface to Galatians, first edition.
J. B. Lightfoot.
Eadie.
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
781
Gloag.
Greek text of Ephesians, Colossians, Galatians, and Thessalonians
&re more detailed in their expositions, and abound in theological
and practical disquisition. The writer, however, draws from many
sources an interesting and useful mass of illustration. The fathers,
the schoolmen, the reformers, the poets, the French and German
writers, and the English and Scotch theologians are made to con¬
tribute to the explanation and illustration of the apostle’s thoughts.
Patou J. Gloag has written a critical and exegetical
commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (Edinb., 1870),
in which the critical and philological element is less prominent
than the purely exegetical. The notes are based on a new transla¬
tion made from the seventh edition of Tischendorf’s Greek text,
and aim to bring out fully and clearly the meaning of the sacred
writer. The work is worthy of a place by the side of those of
Lightfoot and Eadie. *
The commentaries of J. G. Murphy on Genesis, Exodus, Levit¬
icus, and the Psalms have elicited universal commenda¬
tion. They make no great display of learning, but are
lucid, discriminating, and comprehensive, yet sufficiently concise,
and adapted to the wants of unlearned readers. James Morison’s
Critical Exposition of the Third Chapter of Romans,
and his commentaries on Matthew and Mark, are com¬
prehensive and elaborate, but often infelicitous in style, and, per¬
haps, needlessly diffuse. Perowne’s work on the Psalms (2 vols.,
Lond., 1864-68) consists of a new translation, with
' ' Pgiowhg
introductions and notes, and exhibits numerous excellen¬
ces. It would be difficult to name another exposition of the Psalter
which surpasses this one in its combination of good sense, scholarly
finish, sound exegesis, and the admirable arrangement and distribu¬
tion of its several parts.
Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown are the authors of a critical, ex¬
perimental, and practical commentary on the whole Jamieson, Faus-
Bible. The notes are brief, but characterized by good and Brown*
sense, and well adapted to the wants of that numerous class who
desire the results, of the best criticism and exegesis presented to
them in a clear and concise form. Much more comprehensive and
complete is the recent commentary suggested and planned by
Denison, the Speaker of the House of Commons, and prepared by
eminent clergymen of the Church of England under the edito¬
rial supervision of F. C. Cook, canon of Exeter. It is speaker’s com-
known in England as the Speaker’s Commentary, and mentary-
has been republished in this country under the title of The Bible
Commentary. The introductions to the several books, and the
732
HISTORY OF
special essays on important subjects of biblical science, are of the
highest value, while the commentary and critical notes are usually-
learned and judicious. As in all productions of this class, we notice
the inequality of the different writers, but the work, as a whole, is
abundantly worthy of the place it was designed to fill, and as a
learned and recent English commentary on the whole Bible it has
no equal.
Other English exegetes, in learning and ability equal to the best,
other English are A. P. Stanley, whose Lectures on the History of
exegetes. the Jewish Church, and commentary on Corinthians,
combine ample and accurate learning with great vividness and
beauty of statement; Benjamin Jowett, whose critical notes and
dissertations on Paul’s Epistle to the Thessalonians, Galatians, and
Romans, though rationalistic, are pre-eminently scholarly and sug¬
gestive; Conybeare and Howson, whose great work on the Life
and Epistles of St. Paul furnishes the most graphic portraiture of
the history and writings of the Apostle to the Gentiles which has
ever appeared in any language; Thomas Lewin, whose magnificent
volumes, covering the same field as that of the work last named, is
worthy to stand by its side, and, in not a few matters, is its superior.
E. B. Elliott’s ponderous work on the Apocalypse (4 vols., fifth edi¬
tion, London, 1862) shows great industry and research, and contains
a vast amount of valuable material, but his system of interpretation
is not likely to command confidence. Kalisch, a learned Jew, has
written an English translation and critical exposition of Genesis,
Exodus, and Leviticus. His volumes are a storehouse of learning,
and are very helpful to a thorough study of the Pentateuch, but
they are leavened with rationalism. His theological notions gener¬
ally are much less satisfactory than his historical and critical com¬
ments. Ginsburg’s commentaries on Koheleth (Ecclesiastes) and
the Song of Songs are also very full of the products of critical,
exegetical, and historical research, and well deserving of the careful
study of all biblical scholars.
It must be confessed that American scholars have as yet pro-
American exe- duced comparatively little that will endure favourable
getes. comparison with the great exegetical works of British
and German authors. The copious work of Lange (see p. 727), which
has been reproduced in a greatly improved form in this country,
has served to demonstrate the ample critical and exegetical ability
of American scholarship to rival that of the Old World. Neverthe¬
less that work is essentially German. There are two American
names which stand pre-eminent in biblical literature, and have com¬
manded attention both in England and Germany. Moses Stuart
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
733
and Edward Robinson did more thnn any other two men to initiate
an interest in critical studies and to promote the cultivation of
biblical science in their own country? Stuart was made
professor of sacred literature at Andover in 1810, and Moses stuart-
continued in that position until 1848. During these years he pub¬
lished a grammar of the Hebrew language, based on that of Gese-
nius, a Hebrew Christomathy, a New Testament grammar, a Critical
History and Defence of the Old Testament Canon, and commen¬
taries on Hebrews, Romans, and the Apocalypse. He afterward
published commentaries on Daniel, Ecclesiastes, and Proverbs. In
all these works he shows the skill of a master, and his commentaries
have maintained, up to the present time, a place among the ablest
expositions of the books which they treat.
Robinson’s contributions to biblical literature were more pro¬
found and massive than those of Stuart. In 1825 he Edward Robin-
published a translation of Wahl’s Clavis Philologica son-
of the New Testament, which was at a later period of his life en¬
tirely superseded by his own Greek and English Lexicon of the
New Testament (new and revised ed., New York, 1850), a work
that has had incalculable influence in directing the studies of theo¬
logical students and ministers. In 1831 he founded the Biblical
Repository, which subsequently became united with the Bibliotheca
Sacra, and received some of the best exegetical productions both of
himself and Professor Stuart. His translation of Gesenius’ Hebrew
and Chaldee Lexicon did for promoting the study of Hebrew what
his New Testament Lexicon has done for the study of the Greek
Testament. His biblical researches in Palestine still remain,
after the lapse of more than forty years, an indisj)ensable authority
on matters of biblical geography. His translation of Buttmann’s
Greek Grammar, and his Greek and English Harmonies of the
Gospels, are of less note, but very useful in their way. He ranks
among the most distinguished biblical scholar's of the nineteenth
century, and his name is as well known in England and Germany
as in his own land.
Joseph Addison Alexander acquired a reputation in Europe as
well as in America by his learned and useful commen-
* Alexander
taries on Isaiah, the Psalms, the Acts, and the Gospels
of Matthew and Mark. For fulness of treatment, and as a thesaurus
of the views of the most important expositors, his work on Isaiah is
unsurpassed. His scholarship was broad, accurate, and profound,
and his exegetical talent commanded the attention of all the great
biblical scholars of his time.
Among the other more noted American exegetes we name
734
HISTORY OF
Andrews Norton, a Unitarian scholar, and author of a learned and
other American valuable work on the Genuineness of the Gospels
expositors. (2d ed., 3 vols., 1846) ; Charles Plodge, whose com¬
mentary on Romans (new ed., 1864), notably Calvinistic in its the-
ology, ranks among the ablest expositions of that important epistle;
he has also written on the two Epistles to the Corinthians and on
Ephesians ; S. H. Turner, who is widely and favourably known by
his commentaries on Romans, Hebrews, and Ephesians, a critical
work on Genesis, a volume on the interpretation of Prophecy, and
translations of various German exegetical works; and George Bush,
whose Notes on Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Joshua, and
Judges are judicious and practical, have served a very useful pur¬
pose, and have had a wide circulation. Albert Barnes has written
expository notes on all the books of the New Testament, and
also on Job, Isaiah, Daniel, and the Psalms. They have been emi¬
nently popular, and have served to meet the great demand for a
clear, full, and simple exposition, based upon the common English
version, and adapted to the wants of Sunday-school teachers and
ordinary readers. Melanchthon W. Jacobus is the author of excel¬
lent commentaries on the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and
the Book of Genesis. John J. Owen’s Critical, Expository, and
Practical Commentary on Matthew, Mark, and the Acts is a lucid,
thorough, evangelical exposition, and deservedly ranks among the
very best popular commentaries which our country has produced.
Whedon’s Commentary on the New Testament (5 vols. 12mo,
1860-80), intended for popular use, is more original and indepen¬
dent in its plan, and more complete for its purpose than any of the
manual expositions just mentioned. Its style is incisive, epigram¬
matic, and brilliant; its tone, profoundly evangelical. It deals in a
manly way with all difficulties, and sets numerous important pas¬
sages in a light and beauty not recognised before by any exegete.
It is judiciously confined to exposition proper, usually seizes the
central thought of the sacred writer, and exhibits it concisely and
impressively. A series of commentaries on the Old Testament,
prepared by different authors and executed on the same plan as
that of Whedon’s New Testament, is in preparation, and several
volumes (covering Joshua to Jeremiah) have already been pub¬
lished. Henry Cowles has completed a series of expository notes
on the whole Bible, designed for pastors and people (16 vols.
12mo), which, without any parade of learning, are distinguished by
good sense and brevity, clearness of statement, sound and discrim¬
inating judgment, and able treatment of the obscure and difficult
parts of Scripture, on which the ordinary reader needs information.
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
735
Hackett’s commentary on the original text of the Acts (Boston,
1858), and Conant’s work on Genesis, Job, Proverbs, and other
books, in connexion with the new translations of the American
Bible Union, are more learned and philological than the popular
commentaries named above. For critical purposes they are of a
high order, and worthy of the many commendations which they
have received. The Greek and English Harmonies of the Gospels
by James Strong and Frederic Gardiner are the best works of the
kind extant, and exhibit accurate scholarship, excellent judgment,
and the most painstaking fidelity and care. Nast’s English com¬
mentary on Matthew and Mark, modelled much after the style of
Lange’s work on the same books, with an elaborate Introduction to
the Gospel Records (Cincinnati, 1864, 8vo), is an exceedingly valu¬
able contribution to biblical literature. The introduction has been
published separately. W. G. T. Shedcl has recently published a
Critical and Doctrinal Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans,
which is based upon the Greek text of Lachmann, and is truly an
elaborate exegetical and theological discussion of the great ques¬
tions which centre in this book. Its doctrinal position is that of
the Calvinistic confessions, and it is a worthy compeer and comple¬
ment of Hodge’s commentary on the same epistle.
The textual criticism of the New Testament has been carried dur¬
ing the present century to a high degree of perfection. NewTest. Text-
In 1813 G. C. Knapp, author of a translation and ex- uai Criticism,
position of the Psalms, lectures on Christian Theology and other
works, published a second edition of his Greek Testament (Halle,
2 vols. 8vo), in which he availed himself of Griesbach’s labours,
and furnished a work so useful that it rapidly passed Knapp, schuiz,
through numerous reprints and editions, and met with andschoiz.
general approbation. In 1827 David Schulz supervised a new edi¬
tion of Griesbach’s Greek text of the Four Gospels, which he en¬
riched with numerous additions. J. M. A. Scholz spent twelve
years of diligent research in the libraries of Europe and in several
monasteries of the East collecting and collating manuscripts and
other material for a new critical Greek Testament, which appeared
at Leipsic in two quarto volumes (1830-36), and served a useful
purpose chiefly because of the large amount of critical materials
which it supplied. Lachmann’s Critical New Testament
(2 vols., 1842-50) was executed on the plan proposed long
before by Bentley (see above, p. 699), and ignoring the textus
receptus, which had too greatly fettered sound and independent
criticism, he aimed, by the exclusive use of the oldest authorities,
to reconstruct the text which was current in the fourth century.
736
HISTORY OF
The number of his authorities was limited, and his work was at
first subjected to very hostile criticism, largely because ot a mis¬
understanding of his plan and purpose; but later critics have almost
universally acknowledged the correctness of his principles and the
great value of his services.
No textual critic of the century has contributed to this depart¬
ment of biblical science as much as Tischendorf. He
Tischendorf. repeatedly visited the libraries of Europe and the mon¬
asteries of the East, made valuable discoveries of ancient critical
authorities, edited many of the most important manuscripts, and
published in all twenty-four editions of the Greek Testament, four
of which (editions of 1841, 1849, 1859, and 1872) mark a definite
progress in the acquisition of critical materials. His method is es¬
sentially that of Lachmann, but makes use of all authorities which
may reasonably be expected to aid in ascertaining the most ancient
text. S. P. Tregelles, an English scholar who has pub-
Treraeiies. several very useful works in biblical criticism
and exegesis, is probably best known by his Greek Testament edited
from ancient authorities, with the Latin version of Jerome (1 857—
79). He follows out the principles of Lachmann more rigidly than
Tischendorf, and evinces a superior judgment and caution; but his
resources were more limited, and his practice in the collation and
transcription of manuscripts much less, than that of his German
contemporary.1
The vast accumulation of documentary evidence made accessible
westcott and by the manifold labours of preceding generations en-
Hort- abled B. F. Westcott and J. A. Ilort, two eminent En¬
glish critics, to issue in 1881, after more than twenty-five years of
conscientious toil, an admirable edition of the Greek Testament,
the text of which is based exclusively on ancient authorities. It is
considered the maturest product of New Testament criticism, and
creates a conviction among scholars best competent to judge that
we are in possession of an approximately pure text of the Christian
Scriptures. A comparison of the readings in which Tischendorf,
Tregelles, and Westcott and Ilort vary will best serve to show the
degree of perfection which the science of textual criticism has at¬
tained. The passages in which there appears any important varia¬
tion are scarcely a thousandth part of the entire text of the New
Testament.
The revised English version of the Scriptures, prepared by the
leading biblical scholars of Great Britain and America, is a
1 For a complete list of the printed editions of the Greek Testament, see Reuss,
Bibliotheca Novi Testimenti Grmei. Brunswick, 1872.
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
Y37
monumental witness of the advanced state of sacred criticism and
interpretation at the present time. The New Testament portion,
issued in 1881, was received with an eagerness and re-
^ The revised
printed and sold to an extent unparalleled in all the his- English ver-
tory of letters. Whatever opinions are held as to the slon‘
rendering of particular texts, or the infelicities of occasional passages,
competent judges concede that, as a whole, it worthily exhibits the
ripest biblical scholarship of the nineteenth century. The accuracy
and thoroughness of that scholarship may be further apprehended by
observing that many of the least known and read of modern exe-
getes are far superior in exact learning and hermeneutical method
to any of the fathers or tbe mediaeval writers. We have made
no special mention of the works of Billroth, and Hendewerk, and
Hahn, and Titmann, and Reuss, of Reiche, and Kollner, _
and Riickert, and Harless, of Bisping, and Reitmayr, modern exege-
and Windischmann, and Beet, and scores besides, whose S1S*
varied contributions to biblical exegesis fully rank with many of
those described in the foregoing pages. The historical importance
of Philo, and Origen, and Chrysostom, and Jerome, and Lyra, makes
them much more conspicuous than these later writers, but the in¬
trinsic value of the expositions of Scripture produced by the mod¬
erns is immeasurably superior to those of the ancients. Neology
and rationalism have indirectly done great service for the cause of
biblical science. The researches and suggestions of Semler and
Gesenius, the critical acuteness of De Wette and Ewald, and even
the works of Strauss, and Baur, and Hilgenfeld, have given an im¬
pulse to the scientific study of the Holy Scriptures which has al¬
ready produced inestimable gain, and which promises even better
for the future.
The present condition of biblical interpretation is, therefore,
very encouraging. The results of modern travel and present outlook
exploration have silenced not a few of the cavils of and demand,
infidelity, and placed the historical accuracy and trustworthiness
of the sacred writers beyond reasonable doubt. The most accom¬
plished scholars of the world are finding in the study and elucida¬
tion of the Scriptures a worthy and ennobling field of labour, and
are devoting their lives to it with enthusiastic delight. While here
and there we meet with some who cling tenaciously to traditional
opinions and allegorical methods, or indulge in extravagant notions
touching the character of the inspired books, the great body of
evangelical expositors are united on the fundamental principles of
interpretation. They agree, moreover, that a proper commentary
on the Bible, or on any part of it, should clearly set forth the true
47
738
HISTORY.
meaning of the words and the train of thought intended by the
sacred writer; it should point out the grammatico-historical sense
of every passage, giving careful attention to the context, scope,
and plan. Where searching criticism and minute analysis are re¬
quired we are not to be put off with dogmatic assertion, nor should
there be any evasion of difficulties, whether they be textual, geo¬
graphical, chronological, historical, or doctrinal. A commentary
notably full on easy passages, and meagre or superficial on difficult
ones, meets with no favour, and such diffuse and ponderous works
as Caryl on the Book of Job, and Yenema on the Psalms, are
intolerable to the modern student. No single commentary is
now expected to meet the wants of all classes of readers. Philo¬
logical and grammatical treatises are demanded by critical scholars;
professional divines require elaborate disquisitions on important
texts, and the great body of ordinary readers need practical and
suggestive expositions. Especially popular and widely used are
those commentaries which, without being pedantic or obscure, are
both critical and thorough, and furnish the common reader with a
concise and clear statement of all difficulties involved in disputed
passages, and the best methods of explaining them. What has
been written by way of comment on the Holy Scriptures seems
truly prodigious, and no lifetime is long enough to make a thor¬
ough use of half of it; and yet more is needed, and new and supe¬
rior works of biblical exposition will be demanded and supplied as
one generation succeeds another.
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF HERMENEUTICS.
Acosta, Joseph. — De vera scriptnnas interpretandi ratione libri tres.
A part of his work entitled De Christo revelato (Rome, 1590, 4to), and published
also in the appendix of Menochius’ Commentary on the Bible. Paris, 1719,
and Venice, 1771.
Aiken, C. A. — The Citations of the Old Testament in the New. Trans¬
lated from the German of Tholuck, in Bibliotheca Sacra for July, 1854.
Alber, J. N. — Institutiones Hermeneuticae Scripturae Novi Testamenti.
Pestini, 1818. 3 vols. 8vo.
- Institutiones Hermeneuticae Scripturae Sacrae Veteris Testamenti.
Pestini, 1827. 3 vols. 8vo.
Alexander, Archibald. — Principle of Design in the Interpretation of
Scripture. Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review for July, 1845.
On Schools and Systems of Interpretation, see same Review for April, 1855.
Angus, Joseph. — The Bible Handbook. An Introduction to the Study of
Sacred Scripture. Many English and American editions. Revised with
Notes and Index of Scripture texts by F. S. Hoyt. Phila., 1868. 8vo.
Chapters iv-vii of Part First relate to Biblical Hermeneutics.
Apthoilp, East. — Discourses on Prophecy. London, 1786. 2 vols. 8vo.
The second discourse (vol. i, pp. 49-106) discusses the Canons of Prophecy.
Arigler, Altman. — Hermeneutica Biblica generalis usibus academicis ac-
commodata. Vienna, 1813. 8vo. See Unterkircher.
Arizzarra, F. Hyacinthe. — Elementa Sacrae Hermeneuticae, seu Institu¬
tiones ad Intelligentiam Sacrarum Scripturarum. Castrinovi Carfagnanse,
1790. 4to.
Arnold, Thomas. — Sermons chiefly on the Interpretation of Scripture.
New edition. London, 1878. 8vo.
The last two sermons of the volume are on the Interpretation of Prophecy, and
are accompanied with Notes and Appendices.
Ast, F. _ Grundlinien der Grammatik, Hermeneutik und Kritik. Lands-
hut, 1808. 8vo. »
Ayre, John. See Horne.
Barrows, E. P.— A new Introduction to the Study of the Bible. Pub¬
lished by Religious Tract Society. London. 8vo.
Part Fourth of this work is devoted to the Principles of Biblical Interpretation,
and contains in clear outline and compact form an excellent presentation of
the fundamental principles of Hermeneutics.
740
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF HERMENEUTICS.
Bauer, G. L. — Hermeneut.ica Sacra Veteris Testamenti. Lips., 1797. 8vo,
Published as a new edition of Glassius’ Philologia Sacra, but in fact a new work
of no great value.
_ Entwurf einer Hermencutik des alten und neuen Testaments.
Lpz., 1799. 8vo.
Rationalistic, but full of useful hints.
Baumgarten, S. J.— Unterricht von Auslegung der heiligen Schrift, fur
seine Zuhorer ausgefertiget. Halle, 1742. 8vo. Published in an enlarged
form with the title, Ausfuhrlicher Yortrag der biblischen Henneneutik,
by J. C. Bertram. Halle, 1769. 4to.
A work of considerable value.
Beck, C. D.— Commentationes de interpretatione Veterum Scriptornm.
Lips., 1791. 4to.
_ _ Monogrammata Hermeneutices librorum Novi Foederis. Pars
prima, Hermeneutice Novi Testamenti universa. Lips., 1,803. 8vo.
Beck, J. T. — Versuch einer pneumatisch-hermeneutischen Entwickelung
des neuen Kapitels im Briefe an die Romer. Stuttgart, 1833. 8vo.
Somewhat mystical, but suggestive.
- Zur theologischen Auslegung der Schrift. Appended to his Ein-
leitung in das System der christlichen Lehre. Stuttgart, 1838. 8vo.
Beckhaus, J. H. — Remarks on the Interpretation of the Tropical Language
of the New Testament (vol. ii, Edinburgh Biblical Cabinet). Edin¬
burgh, 1833. l6mo.
Bellarmine, Robert. — De Verbi Dei Interpretatione. Opera, vol. i,
book iii, pp. 169-198. Ingolstadt, 1590. Folio.
Blunt, J. H. — Key to the Knowledge and Use of the Holy Bible. Lond.,
1873. 8vo. Phi la., 1873. 16mm
Bosanquet, S. R. — Interpretation ; being Rules and Principles assisting to
the Reading and Understanding of the Holy Scriptures. London,
1874. 12mo.
Bretschneider, C. G. — Die historische-dogmatische Auslegung des neuen
Testaments, nach ihren Principien, Quellen, und Hiilfsmitteln darges-
tellt. Lpz., 1806. 12mo.
Rationalistic, and of no great value.
Brooks, J. W. — Elements of Prophetical Interpretation. Pliila., 1841.
12mo.
Budd^eus, J. F. — Isagoge Historico-Theologica ad Theologiam Universam
singulasque ejus Partes. Lips., 1727. 4to.
Pages 1427-1796 are devoted to Exegetical Theology.
t
Campbell, George. — Preliminary Dissertations to the Gospels. London,
1789. 4to. New edition in 2 vols. London, 1834. 8vo.
The first volume contains twelve dissertations in which important questions of
New Testament exposition are ably handled.
Carpenter, William. — Popular Lectures on Biblical Criticism and Inter¬
pretation. London, 1829. 8vo.
BIBLIOGRAPHY OP HERMENEUTICS.
741
Carpenter, William. — A Popular Introduction to the Study of the Holy
Scriptures for the Use of English Readers. London, 1826.
Part First of this work contains a number of very useful directions for reading
the Holy Scriptures.
Carpzov, John B. — Primae lineae Hermeneuticae et Philologiae sacrae cum
Veteris turn Novi Testamenti brevibus aphorismis comprehensae in usum
lectionum academicarum. Helmstadt, 1790. 8vo.
Cellerier, J. E. — Manuel D’Hermdneutique Biblique. Geneva, 1852. 8vo.
An admirably planned, systematic, and ably executed work ; one of the best of
modern times.
- Biblical Hermeneutics. Chiefly a Translation of the Manuel
D’FIermSneutique Biblique, par J. E. CellSrier. By Charles Elliott and
William J. Harsha. New York, 1881. 8vo.
Chamier, D. — Panstratiae Catholicae, sive controversiarum de religione ad-
versus Pontificios corpus. Geneva, 1626. 4 vols. folio.
The first volume treats biblical interpretation, but polemically.
Chladenius, Martin. — Institutiones Exegeticae, regulis et observationibus
luculentissimis instructae, largissimisque exemplis illustratae. Witten¬
berg, 1725. 8vo.
- Einleitung zur rechtigen Auslegung von Reden und Schriften.
Lpz., 1742. 8 vo.
Clark, James A. — Diversity of Interpretation. Article in the Christian
Review of 1857, pp. 196-215.
Clausen, H. N. (commonly Klatisen). — Hermeneutik des neuen Testaments ;
aus dem Danischen iibersetzt von C. O. Schmidt-Phiseldek. Lpz., 1841.
8vo.
A learned and valuable production, and especially useful for its discriminating
history of biblical interpretation.
Clericus, (Le Clerc) John. — Dissertatio cle optimo genere Interpretum
Sacrae Scripturae.
Prefixed to his Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. i, pp. xiv-xxviii. Am¬
sterdam, 1710.
Cobet, C. G. — Oratio de arte interpretandi grammatices et critices funda-
mentis innixa primario philologi officio. Leyden, 1847. 8vo.
Collyer, David.— The Sacred Interpreter; or, a practical Introduction
toward a beneficial Reading and a thorough Understanding of tiie Holy
Bible. Fifth edition. Carlisle, 1796. 2 vols. 8vo, with cuts.
It was first published in 1746, and translated into German by F. E. Rambach
(Rostock, 1750, 8vo), but is a work of no great merit.
Conybeare, J. J. — The Bampton Lectures for the year 1824, being an At¬
tempt to trace the History and to ascertain the Limits of the secondary
and spiritual Interpretation of Scripture. Oxford, 1824. 8vo.
Conybeare, W. D. — Elementary Course of Theological Lectures. London,
1886. 12mo.
Dannhauer, J. C. — Hermeneutica Sacra, sive methodus exponendaruin
Sacra ruin Literarum. Argentor, 1654. 8vo.
742
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF HERMENEUTICS.
Dathe, J. A. — Opuscula ad Crisin et Interpretationem Yeteris Testament;
(edited by Rosenmiiller). Lips., 1795. See Glassius.
Davidson, Samuel. — Sacred Hermeneutics developed and applied, includ¬
ing a History of Biblical Interpretation from the earliest of the Fathers
to the Reformation. Edinburgh, 1843. 8vo.
A learned and very valuable work, but lacks completeness, and is dispropor¬
tionate in its several parts.
Davison, John. — Discourses on Prophecy. Oxford, 1821. 8vo. Fifth
edition, 1845.
De Rossi, G. B. — Sinopsi della Ermeneutica Sacra. Parma, 1819.
Diestel, L. — Geschichte des alten Testaments in der Christlichen Kirclie.
Jena, 1868. 8vo.
Dixon, Joseph. — A General Introduction to the Sacred Scriptures in a
series of Dissertations, Critical, Hermeneutical, and Historical. Dublin,
1852. 2 vols. 8vo. Baltimore, 1853. 2 vols. in one, 8vo.
Dissertation xii, in vol. i, consisting of eight chapters, sets forth succinctly the
principles of Roman Catholic Hermeneutics.
Dobie, David. — A Key to the Bible: Being an Exposition of the History,
Axioms, and General Laws of Sacred Interpretation. New York, 1856.
12mo.
Doedes, J. J. — Manual of Hermeneutics for the Writings of the New Test¬
ament. Translated from the Dutch by G. W. Stegmann. Edinburgh,
1867. 12mo.
Brief, but excellent, and well worthy of repeated study.
Doepke, J. C. C. — Hermeneutik der neutestamentlichen Schriftsteller.
Lpz., 1829. 8 vo.
Evinces great learning and careful research.
Dukes, L. See Ewald and Dukes.
Eichstaedt. See Morus.
Ellicott, C. J. — Scripture and its Interpretation. One of the essays in
Aids to Faith — Replies to Essays and Reviews. London, 1863. 8vo.
Elster, Ernst. — De medii aevi Theologia Exegetica. Gottingen, 1855. 8vo.
Ewald, H. See Ewald and Dukes.
Ewald and Dukes. — Beitrage zur Geschichte der altesten Auslegung und
Schrifterklarung des alten Testament, 3 vols. 8vo. Stuttgart, 1844.
Ernesti, John August. — Institutio Interprets Novi Testament! ad usus
lectionum. Lips., 1761. 8vo. Fifth edition, edited by Ammon, 1809.
A great work for its day, almost an epoch-making book, and still useful, though
superseded by later treatises.
- Elements of Biblical Criticism and Interpretation, translated from
the Latin of Ernesti, Keil, Beck, and Morus, and accompanied with
notes, by Moses Stuart. Andover, 1827. 12mo. This translation was
republished, with additional observations, by Henderson. London, 1827.
- Principles of Biblical Interpretation, translated from the Insti¬
tutio Interpretis of J. A. Ernesti, by Charles H. Terrot. Edinburgh
(Biblical Cabinet), 1843. 2 vols. 12mo.
Terrot's is the best English translation.
743
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF HERMENEUTICS.
Fatrbairn, Patrick. Hermeneutical Manual; or, Introduction to the
Exegetical Study of the Scriptures of the New Testament. Edinburgh
1858. 8vo. Pliila., 1859. * ’
~~ Tlie Typology of Scripture, viewed in connexion with the entire
Scheme of the Divine Dispensations. Vol. i, Edinburgh, 1845; vol. ii,
1847. 8vo. Fifth edition, revised and enlarged, Edinb. 1870 New
York, 1877.
- Prophecy, viewed in its distinctive Nature, its special Function,
and proper Interpretation. Edinb., 1865. New York, 1866. 8vo.
All these productions of Fairbairn are works of enduring value.
Flacius, Matthias.— Clavis Scripturae Sacrae, seu de sermone Sacrarum
Literarum. Basle, 1567. Folio. Edited by Musaeus. Jena, 1674. Lips.
1695. Erfurt, 1719.
Copious in material, and executed with great learning and ability for the time
when it appeared.
Forbes. See Pareau.
Francke, A. H. — Manuductio ad lectionem Sacrae Scripturae. Halle,
1693. 8vo. London, 1706.
- Praelectiones Hermeneuticae ad viam dextre indagandi et expo-
nendi sensum Sacrae Scripturae. Halle, 1717.
- A Guide to the Reading and Study of the Holy Scriptures.
Translated by William Jaques with life of Francke. London, 1813. 8vo.
Phila., 1823. 12mo.
'Franker, Z. — Ueber den Einfluss der palastinischen Exegese auf den
alexandrinische Hermeneutik. Lpz., 1851. 8vo.
Franzius, Wolfgang. — Tractatus theologicus novus et perspicuus de In-
terpretatione Sacrarum Scripturarum, etc. Wittenberg, 1619. 4to.
Several times reprinted. Sixth ed., 1708. Controversial, and of little worth.
Gabler, J. P. — Entwurf einer Hermeneutik des neuen Testament. Alt-
dorf, 1788. 4to.
Gerard, Gilbert. — Institutes of Biblical Criticism, or Heads of the
course of Lectures on that subject, read in the University of Aberdeen.
Edinb., 1808. 8vo. Boston, 1823.
Gerhard. John. — Tractatus de legitima Scripturae Sacrae Interpretatione.
Jena, 1610. 4to.
Geriiauser, G. B. — Biblische Hermeneutik. Zweiter Theil: Die Grund-
satze der Schriftauslegung. Kempten, 1829. 8vo.
Germar, F. H. — Die panharmonische Interpretation der heiligen Schrift.
Ein Versuch. Schleswig, 1821. 8vo.
- Beitrag zur allgemeinen Hermeneutik und zu deren Anwendung
auf die theologische. Altona, 1828. 8vo.
- Die hermeneutischen Mangel der sogenannten grammatisch-histor-
ischen. eigentlich aber der Tact-Interpretation. Halle, 1834. 8vo.
- Kritik der modernen Exegese, nach den hermeneutischen Maximen
eines competenten Philologen. Ilalle, 1841. 8vo.
Suggestive dissertations, still worthy of perusal.
744
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF HERMENEUTICS.
Gerson, John. — Propositiones tie sensu literali Sacrae Scripturae. Opera,
vol. i. Antwerp, 1706. Folio.
Glaire. See Janssens.
Glassius. Solomon. — Philologiae sacrae, qua totins sacrosanctae Veteris et
Novi Testamenti Scripturae turn stylus et literatura, turn sensus et genu-
inaj Interpretationis ratio expenditur. Jena, 1623. 4to.
Most correct edition, Frankfort and Hamburg, 1653. 4to. Fullest of the old
editions, with Preface by Buddaeus, Lips., 1725. New edition, with valuable
additions by Dathe and Bauer, Lips., 1776-97. 3 vols. 8vo. A work of con¬
siderable value.
Goldhagen, Hermann. — Introductio in Sacram Scripturam Veteris et
Novi Testamenti. Maintz, three parts, 1766-68. 8vo.
Griesbach, J. J. — Vorlesungen fiber die Hermeneutik ties neuen Testa¬
ments; herausgegeben von J. C. S. Steiner. Nuremberg, 1815. 8vo.
Guentner, G. J. B. — Hermeneutica Biblica generalis juxta Principia Ca-
tholica. Prague, 1848. Vienna, 1851. 8vo.
Henderson, E. See Ernesti.
Hiller, M. — Syntagma Hermeneutica. Tubingen, 1711. 4to.
Hirsciifeld, H. S. — Der Geist der talmudischen Auslegung der Bibel.
Erster Theil, Halacliische Exegese. Berlin, 1840. 8vo.
- Der Geist der ersten Schrift-auslegungen, oder die hagadische
Exegese. Berlin, 1847. 8vo.
IIoepfner, C. F. — Grundliuien zu einer fruchtbaren Auslegung der heili-.
gen Schrift. Lpz., 1827. 8vo.
Hofmann, J. Christian K., yon. — Biblische Hermeneutik. Nordlingen,
1880. 16mo.
A new and very valuable contribution to the Science of Biblical Interpretation.
It is a posthumous publication, edited by W. Volck.
Horne, Thomas Hartwell. — An Introduction to the Critical Study and
Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures. London, 1818. 3 vols. 8vo. Many
editions. The second volume of the tenth edition was edited and nearly
rewritten by Samuel Davidson: The Text of the Old Testament, with
a Treatise on Sacred Interpretation, 1856. Eleventh edition, revised
and largely rewritten, by John Ayre and S. P. Tregelles. London, 1860.
4 vols. 8vo. Thirteenth edition, 1872.
The second volume, revised by Ayre, is devoted to tbe Criticism and Interpreta¬
tion of Scripture, and is a comprehensive and useful work.
Huetius, Peter Daniel. — De Interpretatione libri duo; quorum prior est,
de optimo genere interpretandi : alter, de Claris interpretibus. Stadae,
1680. 16mo.
Immer, A. — Hermeneutik des neuen Testaments. Wittenberg, 1873. 8vo.
- Hermeneutics of the New Testament. Translated from the Ger¬
man by A. H. Newman. Andover, 1877. 8vo.
One of the best hermeneutical treatises of modern times.
Irons, W. J. — The Bible and its Interpreters. Miracles and Prophecy.
Second edition. London, 1869. 8vo.
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF HERMENEUTICS.
745
Jackson, Arthur. — A Help for tlie Understanding of the Holy Scripture.
Camb., 1643. 3 vols. 4t<>.
Jackson, Thomas. — The true Sense of Scripture determinable by Rules of
Art. Works xii, 174 (folio edition iii, 895).
Jahn, J. — Enchiridion Hermeneuticae generalis tabularuin Yeteris et Novi
Foederis. Vienna, 1812. 8vo.
A work of much good sense. See Sandbichler and Stuart.
Janssens, J. Hermann. — Hermeneutica Sacra, sen Introductio in omnes
ac singulos libros sacros Veteris et Novi Foederis. Maintz, 1818.
2 vols. 8vo.
- HermSneutique SacrSe, ou Introduction a l’Ecriture Sainte. Trad.
du Lat. par J. J. Pacaud. Paris, 1827. 2 vols. 8vo. New ed., rev. by
J. B. Glaire, 1840. Fifth ed., rev. by Sionnet, 1855.
Jones, William. — Course of Lectures on the Figurative Language of the
Holy Scriptures. London, 1787. 8vo. Second edition, 1789. Also in
vol. iv. of his Theological and Miscellaneous Works. London, 1810.
Jowett, Benjamin. — On the Interpretation of Scripture. One of the es¬
says in Essays and Reviews by eminent English Churchmen. London,
1861. 8vo.
Kaiser, G. P. C. — Grundriss eines Systems der neutestamentlichen Her-
meneutik. Erlangen, 1817. 8vo.
Keil, Karl A. G. — De historica librorum sacrorum Interpretatione ejus-
que necessitate. Lips., 1788. 8vo.
- Ueber die historische Erklarungsart der heiligen Schrift und deren
Nothwendigkeit. Aus d. Lat. von C. A. Hempel. Lpz., 1793. 8vo.
- Lehrbuch der Henneneutik des neuen Testaments nach Grundsatzen
der grammatisch-historischen Interpretation. Lpz., 1810. 8vo.
- Elementa Hermeneutices Novi Testamenti (Latine reddita a C. A. G.
Emmerling). Lips., 1811. 12mo.
All these treatises display the skill of a master, and emphasize the necessity of
strict grammatico-historical interpretation.
Klausen. See Clausen.
Kohlgruber, J. — Hermeneutica Biblica generalis. Vienna, 1850. 8vo.
Lamar, J. S.— The Organon of Scripture; or, ’the Inductive Method of
Biblical Interpretation. Philadelphia, 1860. 12mo.
Landerer. — Article Hermeneutik in Herzog, Real-Encyklopadie (edition
Stuttgart and Hamburg, 1856). Comp. Schmidt.
Lange, Joachim. — Hermeneutica Sacra. Halle, 1733. 8vo.
Lange, J. P. — Grundriss der biblischen Hermeneutik. Heidelb., 1878. 8vo.
Suggestive, well arranged, compact, and convenient for use.
Lee, Samuel. — Six Sermons on the Study of the Holy Scriptures, their
Nature, Interpretation, and some of their most Important Doctrines.
London, 1830. 8vo.
- An Inquiry into the Nature, Progress, and End of Prophecy. Cam¬
bridge, 1849. 8vo.
Lindanus, W. D.— De optimo Scripturas interpretandi genere libri iii.
Colonise, 1558. 16mo.
746
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF HERMENEUTICS.
Litton, E. A. — Guide to the Study of the Holy Scripture. London, 1860.
Loehnis, J. M. A. — Grundzuge der biblischen Herraeneutik und Kritik.
Giessen, 1839. 8vo.
Loescher,Y. E. — BreviariumTheologiaeExegeticae. Frankfort, 1715. 8vo.
- Breviarium Theologiae Exegeticae legitimam Scripturae Sacrae
Interpretationem, nee non studii biblici ratiouem succincte tradens.
Wittenberg, 1719. 8vo.
Lowth, W. — Directions for the Profitable Reading of the Holy Scriptures;
with some Observations for confirming their Divine Authority, and illus¬
trating their Difficulties. Seventh edition, London, 1799. 12mo.
Luecke, G. C. F. — Grundriss der neutestamentlichen Hermeneutik und
ihrer Geschichte. Gottingen, 1817. 8vo.
Lutz, J. L. S. — Biblische Hermeneutik. Pforzheim, 1849. 8vo. Second
ed., edited by Adolf Lutz, 1861.
Macknight, James. — Concerning the Right Interpretation of the Writings
in which the Revelations of God are contained.
Essay viii, appended to his Translation and Commentary on the Apostolical
Epistles. Many editions.
Maimonides, Moses (Rambam). — Moreh Nebuchim, or Guide of the Per¬
plexed. Many editions and translations.
Maitland, Charles. — The Apostles’ School of Prophetic Interpretation,
with its History to the present time. London, 1849. 8vo.
Maitland, S. R. — Eight Essays on the Mystical Interpretation of Scrip¬
ture. London, 1852. 8vo.
Marsh, Herbert. — Lectures on the Criticism and Interpretation of the
Bible. London, 1838 and 1842. 8vo.
Martianay, Jean. — Traits methodique, ou maniere d’expliquer l’Ecriture
par le secours de trois Syntaxes, la propre, la figure, rharmonique.
Paris, 1704. 12mo.
- — Methode Sacrge pour apprendre. et expliquer PEcriture Sainte par
l’Ecriture m£me. Paris, 1716. 8vo.
Matthaei, G. C. R. — Uebersicht der Fehler der neutestamentlichen Exe-
gese. Gottingen, 1835. 8vo.
Mayer, G.— Institutio interpretis sacri. Yindobonae, 1789. 8vo.
M’Clelland, Alexander.— Manual of Sacred Interpretation, for the Spe¬
cial Benefit of Junior Theological Students; but intended for private
Christians in general. New York, 1842. 12mo.
- A Brief Treatise on the Canon and Interpretation of the Holy Scrip¬
tures. New York, 1850.
This is a second and enlarged edition of the preceding. Another revised edition
appeared in 1860
Meier, G. F. — Versuch einer allgemeinen Auslegungskunst. Halle, 1756
8vo.
Meyer, G. W.— Yersuch einer Hermeneutik des alten Testaments. Erster
Theil, Liibeck, 1799. 8vo. Zweiter Theil, 1800. 8vo. New edition, 1812.
Rationalistic, but full of excellent thoughts j concise and comprehensive.
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF HERMENEUTICS.
747
Meyer, G. W. — Gescliichto der Schrifterklarung seit tier Wiederherstel-
lung der Wissenschaften. Gottingen, 1802-9. 5 vols. 8vo.
Meyer, Lewis. — Philosophia Scripturae Interpres. Eleutheropolis, 1666.
4to. Edited, with preface and various notes, by J. S. Semler. Halle,
1776. 8vo.
Moegelin, W. — Die allegorische Bibelauslegung, besonders in der Predigt,
historisch und didactisch betrachtet. Niirnberg, 1844. 8vo.
Monsperger, J. J. — Institutiones Hermeneuticae sacrae Yeteris Testamenti
praelectionibus academicis accommodatae. Pars i, Vindobonse, 1776.
8vo. Pars ii, 1777. 8vo. Second edition, 1784.
Morus, S. F. N.— Super Hermeneutica Novi Testamenti Acroases Acade-
micae. Edited, with additions, by Eichstadt. Vol. i, Lips., 1797;
vol. ii, 1802. 8vo.
Consists substantially of lectures on Ernesti’s Institutes.
Muenscher, Joseph.— On Types and the Typical Interpretation of Scrip¬
ture. Article in the American Biblical Repository for Jan., 1841.
- Manual of Biblical Interpretation. Gambier, Ohio, 1865. 16mo.
Neubauer, E. F. See Rambach.
Nevin, J. W. — Sacred Hermeneutics. Article in the Mercersburg Review,
for 1878, pp. 5-38.
Newman, A. H. See Immer.
Nicholls, Benjamin Elliot. — Introduction to the Study of the Scrip¬
tures. Published by the American S. S. Union. Phila., 1853. 8vo.
Originally published by the London Christian Knowledge Society under the title
of The Mine Explored.
Noesselt, J. A. — Exercitationes ad Sacrarum Scriptuarum Interpreta-
tionem. Halle. 4 vols. 8vo.
Olearius, J. — Elementa Hermeneuticae Sacrae cum praxi hermen. in qui-
busdam exemplis. Lips., 1699,
Olshausen, H. — Ein Wort fiber tiefern Schriftsinn. Konigsberg, 1824. 8vo.
- Die biblische Schriftauslegung; noch ein Wort iiber tieferu Schrift-
sinn. Sendschreiben an Steudel. Hamburg, 1825. 8vo.
Osterwald, J. F. — The Necessity and Usefulness of Reading the Holy
Scriptures; and the Disposition with which they ought to be read.
Translated by J. Moore. London, 1750. 18mo.
Owen, John. — The Causes, Ways, and Means of understanding the Mind
of God as Revealed in his Word. Works, iii, 369.
Pagninus, Sanctes. — Isagoge ad Sacras Literas. Isagoge ad mysticos Sacrae
Scripturae sensus. Lugduni, 1536. Folio.
Pareau, J. H. — Institutio Interprets Yeteris Testamenti. Trajecti. 1822.
8vo.
- Principles of Interpretation of the Old Testament. Translated from
the original by Patrick Forbes. Edinburgh (Biblical Cabinet), 1835
1840. 2 vols. 12mo.
A very excellent and useful treatise.
748
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF HERMENEUTICS.
Pareau, L. G. — Hermeneutica Codicis Sacri. Gronigen, 1846. 8vo.
Peirce, B. K. — The Word of God Opened. Its Inspiration, Canon, and
Interpretation considered and illustrated. New York, 1868. 16mo.
Perion, Joachim. — Commentarii de optimo genere interpretandi. Paris,
1548.
Pfeiffer, Augustus. — Hermeneutica Sacra, sive luculenta de legitima In-
terpretatione Sacrarum Literarum Tractatus. Dresden, 1684. 12mo.
Revised and enlarged, with Preface, by S. B. Carpzov (Thesaurus Her-
meneuticus). Lips, and Frankf., 1690. 4to.
Pfeiffer, J. E. — Elementa Hermeneuticae Universalis, veterum atque re-
centiorum et proprias quasdam praeceptiones complexa. Jena, 1743. 8vo.
- Institutiones Hermeneuticae Sacrae, veterum atque recentiorum et
propria quaedam praecepta complexae. Erlangen, 1771. 8vo.
Planck, G. J. — Einleitung in die theologischen Wissenschaften. Lpz.,
1795. 2 vols. 8vo.
- Introduction to Sacred Philology and Interpretation. Translated
from the German of G. J. Planck, by S. H. Turner. Edinburgh (Biblical
Cabinet), 1834. 12mo. New York, 1834.
Worthy of repeated perusal.
Rambach, John James. — Institutiones Hermeneuticae Sacrae, variis obser-
vationibus copiosissimisque exemplis biblicis illustratae, cum praefa-
tione J. F. Buddei. Jena, 1723. 8vo. Eighth edition. 1764.
Of this work Davidson says : “ In the nature and richness of its materials, the
perspicuous method in which they are presented, and the judicious use of an¬
cient as well as modern literature, it leaves preceding works far behind.”
- Commentatio Hermeneutica de sensus mystici criteriis ex genuinis
principiis deducta, necessariisque cautelis circumscripta. Jena, 1728.
8vo. Second edition, 1741.
- Erlauterung uber seine eigne Institutiones Hermeneuticae Sacrae,
darin nicht nur dieses ganze Werk erklart, imgleichen manches von ilun
geandert und verbessert, sondern auch neue hermeneutische Regeln
und Anmerk ungen hinzugethan, alles aber mit mehr als 1000 erklarten
Oertern der Schrift erlautert worden; mit einer Yorrede von der Vor-
trefflichkeit der rambachischen Hermeneutik, in zwei Theilen ans Liclit
gestellt von E. F. Neubauer. Giessen, 1738. 4to. (See also Reiersen.)
Ranolder, J. — Hermeneuticae Biblicae generalis Principia rationalia Chris¬
tiana et Catholica. Lips., 1839. 8vo.
Raetze, J. G. — Die liochsten Prinzipien der Sclirifterklarung. Lpz., 1814.
8vo.
Reckenberger, J. L. — Tractatus de studio Sacrae Hermeneuticae, in quo
de ejus natura et indole, absoluta in omnibus Theologiae partibus neces¬
sitate, impedimentis ac mediis agitur. Jena, 1732. 8vo.
Chiefly based on Rambach.
Reichel, Y. — Introductio in Ilerrneneuticam Biblicam. Vienna, 1839. 8vo.
Reiersen, Andreas. — Hermeneutica Sacra per Tabulas, seu Tabulae syn-
opticae in Institutiones Hermeneuticae Sacrae earumque liiustiationem
seu Erlauterung J. J. Rambachii. Lips., 1741. 8vo.
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF HERMENEUTICS.
749
Reitmayer, Franz Xayer. — Lehrbuch der biblischen Hermeneutik, her-
ausgegeben von Thalhofer. Kempten, 1874. 8yo.
Rivet, Andrew. — Isagoge, seu Introductio generalis ad Scripturam Sa-
cram Yeteris et Novi Testaments Ludg. Batav., 1627. 4to.
Chapters xiv to .xxiv of this work are devoted to Hermeneutics.
Rosenmueller, J. G. — Historia Interpretationis Librorum Sncrornm in Ec-
clesia Christiana, ab Apostolorum aetate ad literarum instaurationem.
Hildburg, 1795-1814. 5 vols. 12mo.
An excellent review of patristic and mediaeval interpretation.
Rosenmueller, E. F. K. — Hand bucli fur die Literatur der biblischen Krilik
und Exegese. Gottingen, 1797-1800. 4 vols.
Salmeron, Alphonso. — De Scripturae sensu literal! et spirituali, etc.
Opera, vol. i, pp. 69-869. Colonise, 1612. Folio.
Salmond, C. D. F. — Article Hermeneutics in the new edition of the En¬
cyclopaedia Britannica.
Sandbichler. A. — Darstellung der Regeln einer allgemeinen Auslegungs-
kunst von den Biickern des neuen und alten Bundes, nach Jahn. Salz¬
burg, 1813. 8vo.
Sawyer, Leicester A. — The Elements of Biblical Interpretation, or an
Exposition of the Laws by winch the Scriptures are capable of being cor¬
rectly interpreted, together with ah Analysis of the Rationalistic and Mys¬
tic Modes of interpreting them, adapted to common Use, and designed as
an Auxiliary to the Critical Study of the Bible. New Haven, 1836. 12mo.
Schaefer, J. N. — Ichnogrnphia Hermeneuticae Sacrae. Maintz, 1784. 8vo.
Schleiermacher, F. — Hermeneutik und Kritik mit besonderer Riicksicht
auf das neue Testament. Berlin, 1838. 8vo. (Vol. vii of his Theological
Works.)
Masterly in many of its statements, but tinged with speculative philosophy.
Schmidt, W. — Article Hermeneutik in new edition of Herzog's Real-Ency-
klopiidie. Lpz., 1880. Comp. Landerer.
Schmitter, A. — Grand linien der biblischen Hermeneutik. Regensb., 1844.
8vo.
Schuler, P. H.— Geschichte der popularen Schrifterklarung unter den
Christen. Tubingen, 1787. 8vo.
Scott, J.— Principles of New Testament Quotation established and applied
to Biblical Science. Edinburgh, 1875. 12mo.
Seemiller, Sebastian.— Institutiones ad Interpretationem Sacrae Scrip¬
turae, seu Hermeneutica Sacra. Augsburg, 1779. 8vo.
Seiler, G. F. — Biblische Hermeneutik ; oder Grundsatze und Regeln
zur Erlauterung der heiligen Schrift des alten und neuen Testaments.
Erlangen, 1800. 8vo.
_ Biblical Hermeneutics, or the Art of Scripture Interpretation.
From the German of George Frederic Seiler, with Notes, Strictures, and
Supplements from the Dutch of J. Heringa. Translated from the origi¬
nals, with additional notes and observations, by William Wright. Lon¬
don, 1835. 8vo.
Slightly rationalistic, but on the whole a very comprehensive and useful work.
750
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF HERMENEUTICS.
Semler, J. S. — Yorbereitung zur tlieologischen Hermeneutik. Halle,
1760-69. 4 vo Is. 8vo.
- Institutio brevior acl liberalem eruditionem theologicam. Halle,
1765. 8 vo. See Meyer, Lewis.
- Apparatus ad liberalem Novi Testamenti Interpretationem. Halle,
1767. 8vo.
- Apparatus ad liberalem Yeteris Testamenti Interpretationem. Halle,
1773. 8vo.
- Neuer Yersuch, die gemeinniitzige Auslegung und Anwendung des
neuen Testaments zu befordern. Halle, 1786. 8vo.
All Semler’s works are rich in suggestion, but replete with rationalistic errors,
and have exerted a pernicious influence on German exegesis.
Setwtn, J. B. — Hermeneuticae Biblicae Institutiones theoretico-practioae
secundum philologiae regulam ad analogiam fidei Ecclesiae Romanae
Catholicae in compendium collatae. Yienna, 1872. 8vo.
Simon, R. — Histoire Critique du Yieux Testament. Amst., new edition,
1685. 4to.
- A Critical History of the Old Testament. London, 1882. 4to.
English translation of the preceding.
- Histoire Critique des principaux Commentateurs du Nouveau
Testament. Rotterdam, 1693.
Sionnet. See Janssens.
Sixt, G. A. — De Interpretatione universa ab Ernestio observata notulis
aucta. 1785.
Sixtus Senensis. — Ars interpretandi Scripturas Sacras absolutissima.
Forms the third book of his Bibliotheca Sancta. Yenice, 1566. Folio.
Often reprinted.
Smith, John Pye. — Principles of Interpretation as applied to the Prophe¬
cies of Holy Scripture. London, 1829. Second edition, 1831.
Stark, W. — Beitrage zur Yervollkommung der Hermeneutik, insbesondere
des Neuen Testament. Two Parts, Jena, 1817-18.
Staudlin, K. F. — De Interpretatione librorum Novi Testamenti historica
non unice vera. Gottingen, 1807.
Stegmann. See Doedes.
Stein, K. W. — Ueberden Begriff und den obersten Grundsatz der historis-
chen Interpretation des neuen Testament. Lpz., 1815. 8vo.
An able and suggestive treatise.
Steiner. See Griesbach.
Stier, R. — Andeutungen fur glaubiges Schriftverstandniss im Ganzen
und Einzelnen. Konigsberg, 1824. 8vo.
Storr, G. C. — Opuscula Academica ad Interpretationem Librorum Sacrorum
pertinentia. Tubingen, 1796. 8vo.
- Essay oq the Historical Sense of the New Testament. Translated
by J. W. Gibbs. Boston, 1817. 12mo.
Stowe, C. E. — The Right Interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. The
Helps and the Hindrances. Bibliotheca Sacra, 1853, pp. 34-62.
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF HERMENEUTICS. 751
Stttart, Moses. Hints on the Interpretation of Prophecv. Andover 1842
12mo.
— Dissertations on the Importance and best Method of Studying the
original Languages of the Bible, by Jalrn and others. Translated °from
the originals, and accompanied with notes. Andover, 1827. 8vo.
These, like all of Professor Stuart’s writings, are very worthy of careful perusal.
- — On the Alleged Obscurity of Prophecy. Article in the American
Biblical Repository for April, 1832.
- Translation of Hahn, On the Grammatico-Historical Interpretation
of the Scriptures, with additional essay on the same subject, in American
Biblical Repository for January, 1831.
Are the same Principles of Interpretation to be applied to the Scrip¬
ture as to other books. American Biblical Repository for January, 1832.
See also Ernesti.
Surenhusius, W-mromSD, sive Biploc Ka-aUaync, in quo secundum
Veterum Theologicorum Hebraeorum formulas allegandi, et modus inter-
pretandi conciliantur loca ex Y. in N. T. allegata. Amst., 1713. 4to.
Unsurpassed in the field it occupies.
Teller. See Turretin.
Terrot. See Ernesti.
Tholuck, Augustus. — Beitrage zur Spracherklarung des neuen Testaments.
Halle, 1832. 8vo.
- Hints on the Interpretation of the Old Testament. Translated by
R. B. Patton (vol. ii of Edinburgh Biblical Cabinet). Edinb, 1833. 16mo.
- On the Use of the Old Testament in the New, and especially in the
Epistle to the Hebrews. Translated by J. E. Ryland. (Yol. xxxix of
the Biblical Cabinet). Edinburgh, 1842. 16mo. See Aiken.
- Hermeneutics of the Apostle Paul, with special reference to Gal.
iii, 16. (Yol. xxxix Biblical Ciibinet).
These last two are Dissertations at the end of Tholuck’s Commentary on the
Epistle to the Hebrews, and all the above are worthy of careful study.
Toellner, J. G. — Grundriss einer erwiesenen Hermeneutik der heiligen
Schrift. Ziillichau, 1765. 8vo.
Philosophical, learned, and excellent for its day.
Turner, S. H. — Thoughts on the Origin, Character, and Interpretation of
Scriptural Prophecy. New York, 1851. 12mo. See also Planck.
Turretin, J. A. — De Sacrae Seripturae interpretandae methodo Tractatus
bipartitus, in quo falsae multorum interpretum hypotheses refelluntur,
veraque interpretandae sacrae Seripturae methodus adstruitur. Dort,
1728. 8vo. Revised and enlarged by G. A. Teller. Frankfort, 1776. 8vo.
Turpie, David McC. — The Old Testament in the New. A Contribution
to Biblical Criticism and Interpretation. London, 1868. 8vo.
Unger, A. F. — Populare Hermeneutik, oder Anleitung die Schrift auszu-
legen flir Lehrer des Yolkes in Schulen und Kirchen. Lpz., 1845. 8vo.
Unterkircher, C.— Hermeneutica Biblica generalis. CEniponti, 1834. 8vo.
Arigler’s work of the same title adapted to the use of Romanists in Austria.
752
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF HERMENEUTICS.
Vail, Stephen M. — Hermeneutics and Homiletics; or, The Study of the
Original Scriptures and Preaching. Articles in Methodist Quarterly Re¬
view for 1866, pp. 37-50 and 371-386.
Van Mildert, William. — An Inquiry into the General Principles of Scrip¬
ture Interpretation, in eight sermons, preached before the University of
Oxford in the year 1814. (Bampton Lectures). Oxford, 1814. 8vo.
Third edition, 1831.
Volck, W. — Section on Biblical Hermeneutics in Zockler’s Handbuch der
theologischen Wissenschaften. Nordlingen, 1883. See Hofmann.
Wemyss, Thomas. — A Key to the Symbolical Language of Scripture, by
which numerous Passages are explained and illustrated. Edinb., 1835.
16mo.
Wettstein, J. J. — Libelli ad Crisin atque Interpretationem Novi Testa-
menti. Halle, 1766. 12mo.
Whitaker, William. — On the Interpretation of Scripture. Cambridge,
1849.
Part of a disputation on Holy Scripture against the papists, especially Bellarmine
and Stapleton.
Whittaker, John William. — An Historical and Critical Enquiry into the
Interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures. London, 1819. 8vo.
Whitby, Daniel. — Dissertatio de Sacrarum Scripturarum Interpretatione
secundum Patrum Commentaries. Lond., 1714. 8vo.
Wilke, Christian G. — Die Hermeneutik des neuen Testamentes systemat¬
ise!! dargestellt. Lpz., 1843. 8vo.
- Biblische Hermeneutik nacli katholischen Grundsatzen in streng
systematischen Zusammenhange und unter Beriicksichtigung der neu-
esten approbirten hermeneutisclien Lelirbiicher. Wurzburg, 1853. 8vo.
Wilson, J.— The Scripture’s genuine Interpreter asserted; or, a Discourse
concerning the right Interpretation of Scripture. Lond., 1678. 8vo.
Winthrop, Edward. — The Premium Essay on the Characteristics and
Laws of Prophetic Symbols. Second edition. New York, 1854. 12mo.
Wollius, C. — Henneneutica Novi Foederis acroamatico-dogmatica certis-
simis defecatae philosophise principiis corroborata eximiisque omnium
Theologiae Christianae partium usibus inserviens. Lips., 1736. 4to.
Appendix to Blackwall’s Auctores Sacri classici defensi et illustrati.
Wordsworth, C. — On the Interpretation of Scripture. An essay in Re¬
plies to Essays and Reviews. London, 1862. 8vo.
Wright. See Seiler.
Wyttenbach, Daniel. — Elements Hernieneuticae Sacrae, eo quo in scien-
tiis fieri debet, modo proposita. Marburg, 1760. 8vo.
Zachariae, G. T. — Einleitung in die Auslegungskunst der heiligen Sclirift.
Gottingeji, 1778. 8vo.
Zenkel, G. P. — Elements Henneneuticae Sacrae, methodo naturali con-
cinnata. Jena, 1752. 8vo.
INDEX TO SOEIPTUEE TEXTS.
•
To facilitate reference each page (including foot-notes) is supposed to be divided into three
nearly equal sections, designated by the letters a, b, and c. Thus, 125a denotes the upper por¬
tion of page 125 ; 125b denotes the middle section ; and 125c the lower part of of the page. The
letter n following a number indicates that the passage referred to is in a foot-note. The aster¬
isk (*) designates pages on which the text referred to receives some comment or interpretation.
Genesis.
Genesis.
Genesis.
I.
1-
3. 84ab.*
YI.
5.
103a,
196a.
XY.
6.
338c.
ll
1. 211c, 549a,* 551a*
ll
6.
103a.
ll
13.
387c.
667a.*
ll
7-17.
549a.
XYI.
7.
588a.
a
2.
189b*
ll
9.
212b, 567c.
ll
10.
588a.
n
5.
384c.
ll
12.
550b.
ll
13.
588a.
u
8.
549a.*
ll
13.
543a*
XVII.
2-8.
408b.
n
10.
649b*
ll
14.
177c.
ll
12.
382b.
u
14.
549a.
VII.
4.
385a,
387b*
ll
19.
321c.
u
15.
549a.
n
3-11.
549a.
ll
20.
84c.*
a
16.
639a.*
ll
12.
385a.
XVIII.
2.
381b.
n
17.
539a* 549a.
ll
17.
385a.
u
10-14.
321c.
n
20.
549a.
ll
18.
88c.
ll
18.
408b.
u
21.
549b.
ll
19.
543a*
ll
21
451n.
'll
26.
549a.
ll
22.
86c.
XIX.
19.
122a.
u
27.
549b*
VIII.
2.
549a.
ll
24. 45 In,
587b*
u
28.
549a.
ll
4.
550b.
XX.
3-7.
397a.
u
30.
549a.
ll
21.
196a.
XXI.
1.
608b*
ii.
1.
88c.
IX.
6.
528a.
ll
9.
321c.
u
2.
382b.
ll
8-17.
393a.
ll
10.
322a.
u
3.
211c, 382b, 551b,
ll
9.
567c.
XXII.
3,4.
639n.
567b.
u
n 16.
334c.
ll
10.
194b.
a
4.
211c* 551b, 567a.*
ll
1
A v t
103a.
ll
11.
588a.
n
5.
212a,* 567a.
ll
f
381b.
ll
12.
588a.
n
6.
567b, 613a *
.6.
89b.
ll
15.
588a.
u
7.
86c* 567b.*
ll
26.
408b.
ll
16.
588a.
n
8.
613a*
ll
27. 249a, 408b, 567c.
ll
18.
591a.
n
9.
86c*
X.
1.
212b.
XXY.
12.
212b.
n
10-
14. 163b*
ll
2.
115b.
ll
19.
212b.
u
16.
71c.
ll
18.
7Sn.
XXVII.
41.
193a.
u
17.
71c.
ll
21.
77a*
XXVIII.
10-22.
397c*
n
19.
71b, 268a* 549a.
ll
25.
77n.
n
12. 179b,* 397a.
u
20.
549a.
XI.
2.
355a.
XXIX.
1.
101b.
u
23.
567b.-
ll
5.
103b.
ll
11.
101b.
hi.
1.
89b.
l .
10-26.
212b,
500b,
ll
13.
101b.
n
15. 408a *41 2b ,*486a.
567c.
ll
32.
51 6n.
495a* 572a.
ll
17-27.
77n.
XXX.
1.
512c.
n
22.
101c.
ll
27.
212b.
ll
8.
89n.
u
24.
347c, 362c.
ll
31.
77n.
ll
24. 512c
516n.
IY.
8.
193a.
XII.
3.
408b.
XXXI.
7.
383b.
11
23.
270a*
ll
6. 77b, 78n,
15 On.
ll
19.
77n.
ll
24.
270a*
XIII.
14.
398a.
ll
24.
397a.
ll
25.
212b.
XIV.
1.
655b*
ll
26-30.
91*
ll
26.
212b, 551b.
ll
8.
655b.*
ll
30.
77n.
V.
1.
212b,* 567b*
ll
13.
76bc,
* 77b.
ll
36-42.
hlc*
ll
2.
549b.
ll
14.
608c.
ll
41.
383b.
VI.
2.
567c*
ll
18-20.
342b.
ll
47. 77cn
1041
48
754
INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS.
Genesis.
Exodus.
Exodus.
XXXI.
54.
194b.
IV.
16.
406a.
XXV. 40. 128b, 245a,
XXXII.
20.
177c.*
U
22.
509a.
568c.
XXXIII.
1.
101b.
VII.
1.
406a.
XXVI. 1. 893a,394ac.
u
19.
15 On.*
a
19.
249b.*
“ 4.
393c.
XXXIY.
26.
193b.
VIII.
29.
194b.
“ 19.
395a.
XXXV.
16-18.
512c.
X.
1-6.
429c.
“ 31. 393a,394ac.
a
18.
513a.
a
14.
85a.
“ 34.
362a.
XXXYI.
1.
212b.
a
17.
430n*
“ 36.
394a.
XXXVII.
2.
212b.
u
23.
550a.
XXVII. 2.
395a.
a
5-10.
397a.
XII.
15-20.
315a.
“ 10.
395a.
399a.
*
a
15.
382b.
XXVIII. 5.
394a.
XXXIX.
14,
76bn.
a
21.
249c*
“ 6.
394a.
u
17.
76bn.
a
23.
461b.
“ 8.
394a.
XL.
5-19.
367a.
a
40.
370b
885c*
“ 15-21.
395c.
it
15.
7 6 bn.
XIII.
7.
315a.
“ 15.
394a.
a
32.
478b.
a
15.
193b.
“ 21.
383b.
XU.
1-32.
397a.
a
21.
347c.
“ 28.
393b.
a
12.
76n.
XIV.
8.
103b.
“ 31.
393b.
a
19.
195c.
a
21.
103b.
“ 39.
394a.
u
25.
399a*
XV.
1-19.
139a.
XXIX. 21.
366a.
a
32. 399a*416c ,*
it
1.
163c*
“ 23.
354n.
428b*
a
3.
103b.
“ 36.
195a.
a
51.
512c.
XVI.
33.
363c.
“ 42-46.
360b.*
ti
52.
512c.
u
34.
363c.
“ 43. 360c *363c.
XLII.
13.
89b.
XIX.
5.
364b.
367bn,^
433a.
it
38.
249c.
a
6.
364b.
“ 45.
500c.
XLIII.
16.
194a.
it
9.
141a.
XXX. 6..
365a.
a
32.
76n.
a
16-20,
450c.
“ 10.
178a.
XLV.
21.
249a*
a
18.
106c, 713c.
“ 12.
178a.
XL VI.
3.
518a.
a
20.
451c.
“ 20. 260b,
866a.
a
4.
518a.
XX.
1.
141a,
143b.
“ 21.
366a.
it
8.
518b*
a
2.
392a.
XXXI. 18. 141a,
143b,
i.
a
12.
519an.*
a
5.
362a.
3 6 Of
a
15.
518b*
a
8-11.
382b.
XXXIII. 18.
396b.
a
17.
519b*
a
11.
381b.
“ 20.
451n.
a
21. 519b ,*520n .*
ti
13. 165b*
193c,*
XXXIV. 5-7.
569a.*
a
26.
519n.
528 *
“ 26.
359c.
a
27. 385b
519a*
tt
19.
14 *1, 143b.
“ 27.
360a.
XLIX.
1.
553a.
XXI.
2.
UOc.
“ 28.
383b.
a
6. 189b* 193b.
u
16.
w ^ O.
XXXV. 6.
393a.
a
8-12.
99b *
a
23-25.
525c*
XXXVIII 21.
491b.
a
9. 258c
303n.
XXII.
1-4
333b.
“ 23.
383a.
a
10.
250b*
a
3.
333c.
XXXIX. 22.
393b.
a
14.
259c*
XXIII.
14-17.
389a.
XL. 22-27.
364b.
a
21.
259c.*
a
19.
359c.
a
22-26.
9$c.*
a
20-22.
612b.
Leviticus.
u
27.
260a*
a
21.
588a.
II. 7.
263b.
a
31.
•384b.
IV. 6.
382c.
Exodus.
I. 1-5
“ 3.
“ 5.
“ 7.
“ 15
“ 16.
“ 19.
6.
2.
5.
II.
TI.
*•' 6.
IY. 10.
516n, 519n*
76n.
3S5b, 519a.
76n.
79n.
475c.
76n.
76n.
347c.
106c.
381b.
88c.
XXIY.
it
<c
u
a
tt
XXY.
u
u
u
u
It
tt
1.
4.
9.
16.
17.
28.
4.
16.
17-22.
17.
21.
22.
31-40.
385b.
383b.
385b.
451c.
451c.
385b.
393a.
360a.
178b.
362b.*
360a, 862a *
862b.*
350b.
V.
u
13.
22.
27.
2.
3.
“ 4.
“ 17.
“ 19.
YI. 26.
VII. 9.
IX. 15.
XI. 7
“ 15-
13.
16.
197b.*
197b.
197b.
197b.
197b.
197 b.
197b.
197b.
195a.
263b.
195a.
163c.
163c.
INDEX TO SCRIPTURE TEXTS.
755
Leviticus.
XI.
22.
309a.
XIII.
1-16.
51 6n.
XVIII.
15-19.
570b.
XII.
2.
382b.
it
25.
387a.
XIX.
21.
526a.
it
3.
382b.
XIV.
2-4.
387a*
XXI.
15.
225c.
XIY.
6.
260b,
260b,
381b.
it
33. 386ac,
* 387a*
XXII.
1-3.
5G9b.
it
7.
382b.
XV.
27.
197c.
it
9.
372n.
it
8.
382c.
it
37-41.
393c.
XXIII.
12-14.
372n.
it
51.
260c,
382c.
XVI.
32.*
251b*
XXIV.
4.
81c.
it
52.
195a.
XVII.
10.
363c.
it
7.
580b.
XV.
13.
382c.
XIX.
6.
381b.
XXV.
3.
385b.
it
24.
382c.
i(
11.
382c.
XXVI.
13.
196c.
XVI.
2-6.
366b *
it
18.
260c.
XXVIII.
5.
250a*
it
2.
362b.*
it
19.
260c.
it
20.
195c.
it
11-17.
362a.
XXI.
4-9.
341a*
it
63.
604b.
it
12.
366a.
it
14.
501a.
it
64.
604b.
it
12-16.
366b*
it
17.
102c.
it
68.
392a.
it
27.
382c.
it
25.
86b.
XXX.
6.
271c.
XVII. 11.
XIX. 10.
“ 17.
178a, 339a,
358an.
569b.
569b.
Numbers.
XXII.
XXIII.
38.
7.
21.
26.
143a.
265b.
196b.
143a.
“ 18.
669b, 581a.
XXIV. 3.
401b.
it
40.
259b*
“ 19.
372n.
“ 4.
401b.
it
41.
251a.*
“ 32.
249b*
“ 7.
306a.
it
42.
259c,* 262b.*
XXI. 7-15.
376b.
“ 8.
265b.
it
51.
196b.
XXIII. 15.
382b.
“ 13.
143a.
XXXIV. 12.
396b.
“ 24.
382b.
“ 14.
553a.
“ 27.
178a.
“ 17.
169b.
Joshua.
“ 28.
178a.
“ 17-24.
409a*
I.
1.
570b.
XXIV. 5-9.
364b*
“ 21.
260a.
it
5.
85 a.
“ 5.
383c.
“ 24.
409b.
II.
9.
384b.
“ 6.
364n.
XXVI. 40.
519b *
it
24.
384b.
“ 20.
526a.
XXVII. 8-11.
523b.
III.
7.
470b.
XXV. 8.
382c.
XXXII. 40.
520c*
IV.
1.
670b.
“ 40.
580c.
“ 41.
520c *
V.
13.
205c,*
570b.
“ 44.
580b.
XXXIV. 17-28.
516n.
it
14.
205c.
“ 45.
580b.
XXXV. 9-34.
339a.
VI.
2.
384 b.
“ 54.
580c.
“ 27-30.
193c.
ti
5.
205c.
XXVI. 12.
500c.
“ 31-34.
528b.
tt
13-
-15.
3S2c,
384a.
“ 26.
383b.
VII.
1.
196a.
Deuteronomy.
tt
11.
196c.
Numbers.
II. 25.
543b.
tt
15.
196c.
I. 5-15.
51 6n.
IV. 13. 360a,
383b.
it
24-
26.
377n.
“ 20-47.
51 6n.
“ 15.
451c.
X.
12-
14.
540.*
III. 16.
249a*
“ 19.
643b.
it
13.
501a, 540bn.
IV. 6.
393c.
V. 4.
141a.
tt
26.
192b.
“ 7.
393c.
“ 17.
193c.*
XI.
6.
189c.
“ 8.
394a.
“ 22.
141a.
tt
9.
189c.
“ 11.
393c.
VI. 4. 380c,
587c.
tt
17.
192b.
“ 12.
393c.
“ 5.
569b *
XV.
20-
62.
524a.
« 13.
394a.
VIII. 3.
254c.
XVII.
11.
86b.
V. 12.
196a.
« 7-9.
287n.
XXII.
14.
383b.
VI. 5.
262b.
IX. 9.
360a.
it
16.
196b.
“ 24-26.
381b, 587a.
X. 4.
383b.
it
20.
196a.
“ 27.
381b.
“ 22. 385b, 519an.
VII. 87.
383c.
XII. 23.
359a.
<Jud
ges.
XI. 15.
1 22a.
XIII. 1-5.
372n.
II. 20.
196c.
“ 24.
385b.
“ 6-11
225b.
V. 2.
262a*
263b.
“ 29.
431a.
XIV. 3.
372n.
“ 14.
260a.
XII. 6. 143a.
206a. 396a*
XV. 12.
76n.
“ 20.
179b,
541a.
“ 7. 215b. 343b. 396a.*
XVII. 6.
249a.*
“ 21.
106b.
“ 8.
271a, 396a.*
XVIII. 15.
339b.
“ 26.
101b.
Deuteronomy.
XXXI. 26.
XXXII. 2.
“ 35.
“ 39.
363c.
608b.*
527b.*
193a.
756 INDEX TO SCRIPTURE TEXTS.
Judges.
2 Samuel.
2 Kings.
V.
27.
101b.
I.
23.
253b.
VIII.
22.
196c,
VI.
36-40.
340a.*
II.
1.
87c.
44
26.
515a.
VII.
12.
253a*
<4
10.
515ab.
X.
1-7.
377b.
a
13-15.
397a.
44
11.
515b.
44
7.
194b.
VIII.
17.
193ab.
V.
4.
515a.
44
9.
193a.
4;
21.
193b.
VII.
4-17. 399b.*570e.
44
14.
194b.
44
26.
393c.
44
18. *
399c.
XIV.
9.
266c.*
IX.
7-20.
266a.*
VIII.
4. 189c.
525a*
XV.
10.
192c.
44
28.
150n.
44
17.
605a.
44
14.
192c.
<4
54.
193a.
XII.
1-4. 278a,
* 292a.
XVIII.
12.
196c.
XI.
30-40.
206a*
4t
15.
187a.
44
26.
77b,
107ac.
XII.
6.
194c.
XIV.
4-7.
292b.
XIX.
16.
103b.
44
7.
251a*
XVI.
1.
349c.
XXIV.
2.
107n.
XIV.
8-9
268c.
XVIII.
15.
192c.
44
14.
274c.
44
14.
268c.*
44
33.
252b.
44
15.
274c.
44
18.
100b.
XXI.
20.
416a.
44
17.
275a.
XVII.
10.
388c.*
XXII.
16.
106c.
XXV.
4.
107u.
XX.
16.
194c.
XXIII.
1.
190a.
44
5.
107n.
44
32.
179b.
44
2. 399c. 566c.
44
10.
107n.
Ulltlle
44
21.
193a.
44
13.
107n.
IV.
2.
383b.
XXIV.
16.
461b.
1
Chronicles.
1 Samuel.
1 Kings.
I.
17-
-27.
500b.
I.
3.
389a.
I.
1.
88a.
II.
7.
1 96b.
u
7.
389a.
II.
32.
193a.
44
21.
520c.*
ll
8.
383b.
44
44.
196a.
44
22.
520c*
ll
9.
359c.
III.
1.
326a.
44
55.
605a.
ll
19.
513a.
44
5.
397a.
III.
19.
523b.
ll
20.
513a.
IV.
3.
605a.
• 4
24.
523b.
II.
6.
193a.
44
13.
520c.
y.
11-
17.
517a.
44
19. 388c
389a*
VI.
3.
354b.
VIII.
1.
517b.
44
36.
354n.
44
20.
361c.
44
3.
520a.
III.
1.
570b.
VII.
15.
525a.*
44
5.
520a.
44
3.
359c.
IX.
2.
397a.
IX.
24.
382a.
IV.
6.
76n.
X.
1.
268b.
XVII.
25.
103b*
l4
9.
76n.
XI.
29-31.
334c.
XVIII.
4,
189c
525a*
VI.
18.
177c*
44
41- 13Sn. 501a.
XXVII.
25.
177c.*
X.
3-6.
407b.
XII.
19.
196c.
XXVIII.
11.
245a
362c.
44
5.
570b.
XIII.
1.
406a.
44
12.
245a.
44
9-12.
404a.
XIV.
21.
515a.
XXIX.
29.
138n.
44
10-12.
328c*
44
29.
138n.
2 Chronicles
XI.
15.
194b.
XV.
31.
138n.
III.
15.
525a.*
XIII.
1.
515a*
XVIII.
10.
543b.
V.
12.
394a.
44
3.
76n.
44
21.
88a.
VII.
4.
1 94b.
44
7.
76n.
44
27.
253c.
IX.
11.
-
179b.
XV.
23.
195b.
44
40.
194b.
XII.
15.
501b.
44
24.
196c.
XIX.
1.
193b.
XX.
1-
13.
430a.
XVII.
50.
192c.
44
8.
385b.
44
20-
26.
331c.
XIX.
20.
570b.
44
10.
193b.
44
30.
431c.
ll
23.
404a.
44
19-21.
87c.
XXI.
10.
196c.
ll
24.
404a.
XX.
38-40.
292b.
44
19.
388c
389b.*
XXII.
18.
192c.
XXII.
42.
515a.
XXIV.
21.
288c.
XXIV.
13.
329c.
44
25
193a.
XXV.
11.
194a.
2 Kings.
XXIX.
6.
196b.
XXVI.
12.
89n.
I.
1.
196c.
XXXII.
32.
138n.
ll
17.
85c.
II.
9-12.
448a.
XXXIII.
17.
194b.
ll
18.
85c.
III.
7.
196c.
XXXVI.
16.
288c.
IV.
7-9.
406a.
2 Samuel.
V.
7.
193a.
Ezra.
I.
12-15.
540c.
VI. 17.
448a*
II. 1-
70.
525b*
ll
18.
540c.
VIII. 20.
196c.
“ 64.
525b.
INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS.
757
Ezra.
Job.
Psalms.
IV.
7. 107a,
108n.
XXXIII.
14-17. 396n.
XXXVII.
12.
197a.
it
8. 107n, llObn.
XXXIV.
6. 187a* 248c*
44
14.
194a.
u
11.
111a.
44
29. 197a*
44
21.
197a.
V.
4.
llOn.
44
37. 197a.
XLII.
7.
500b.
VI.
18. 107n, llObn.
XXXV.
10. 190a.
XLV.
1.
263b *
VII.
1-10.
109c.
XXXVII.
3. 543b*
44
8.
lOln.
.4
10.
604b.
XXXIX.
27. 260b.
XL VI.
9.
251a.*
u
12-26. 107n
110c.
XLIX.
4.
268b,
44
12.
375b.
Psalms.
L.
1.
539b.
VIII.
16.
605a.
I.
1. 85b, 86b,*
LI.
7.260b*
593b.
X.
2-10.
196a.
98c, 197a.
44
10.
271c.
44
2. 98b, 604c.
LVII.
3.
375a.
Neliemiah.
II.
2. 399c* 479n .*
44 .
5-
11.
649b.
I.
1.
424b.
44
6. 339b, 399c*
LXVI.
3.
88b.
VII.
6-73.
525b *
III.
1. 234a.
LXVIII. 15.
89n.
44
66.
525b.
44
2. 234a.
44
16.
86a.
VIII.
1-8. 110a,
604c.
44
4. 234b.
44
26.
306a.
u
1-15.
605b.
44
5. 233c.*
LXIX.
1.
349a.
u
8.
108a.
t4
6. 234a.
44
2.
349a.
IX.
29.
260a.
IV.
6. 234b.
LXXI.
13.
196a.
X.
28.
605c.
44
7. 234b.
LXXII.
1.
289c.
XIII.
13.
605c.
VI.
6. 253b.
44
10.
100c.
u
24.
113a.
VII.
8. 234c.
LXXVII.
9.
375a.
<
44
10. 375a.
LXXVIII.
2.
268b,
51 2b*
Esther.
X.
7. 195c.
44
10.
96c.
I.
2.
424b.
XII.
2. 375a.
44
47.
193c*
44
3.
424b.
44
6. 384a.
44
68.
106c.-
44
14.
424b.
XV.
3. 196a.
LXXIX.
12.
384a.
44
18.
424b.
XVI.
4. 189c*
LXXX.
8-
15.
303a,*
44
19.
424b.
44
8-11. 630b*
321a.
VIII.
15.
394a.
XVII.
15. 571a.
44
10.
89n.
IX.
6.
193b.
XV III.
2. 248b.
XC.
2.
88b,
496b.
44
10.
193b.
44
6-15. 185b.*
44
3.
89n.
44
12.
193b.
44
9. 541a.
4£
4.
88b,
496a.
44
15.
193a.
44
40. 66 In.
44
13.
101c.
44
41. 661n.
XCI.
1.
368n.
Job.
XIX.
2. 96c.
44
11.
571a.
IV. 12-21.
94n.*
44
3. 101c.*
44
14.
97a.
V. 2.
193b.
44
4-6. 539bc*
XCII. 12-
14.
306c.
“ 24.
195a.*
44
4. 101c*
XCIII.
3.
86a
, 96b.
VI. 4.
249a.*
XX.
9. 95c.
XCV.
2.
190a.
“ 5.
96c.
XXI.
11. 196a.
XCVIII.
8.
86a.
“ 9.
lOln.
XXII.
3. 365a.
CII.
6.
255b*
“ 24.
197c.
XXIII.
5. 249c,* 677a.
CIV.
2.
184a.
IX. 6.
259b*
XXIV.
2. 96c.
44
4.
3-5 5c.
“ 28.
189c.
44
3. 366a.
44
16.
89n.
XI. 7.
253a.
44
4. 366a.
CVII.
3.
382a.
XII. 1.
253c.
XXV.
8. 89a.
CXIII.
4-
6.
549b.
XIII. 15.
192a.
XXVI.
6. 260b*
CXIV.
3.
86 a,
251c.*
XV. 35.
195c.
XXVII.
1. 98a.
44
4.
86a,
251c*
XVIII. 13.
96b.
44
5. 368n.
44
5.
252a.*
XIX. 3.
383b.
XXVIII.
4. 195c.
44
6.
86a,
252a,*
44
25-27.
219c,
XXIX.
6. 541a.
541a.
<4
27.
367n.
XXX.
5. 97b.
CXIX. 34.
604c.
XX. 4.
253a.
XXXI.
20. 368n.
44
35.
604c.
u
16.
193b.
XXXII.
5. 195b.
44
54.
190a,
XXIV. 14.
192a.
XXXIV.
7. 571a.
44
61.
197a.
XXVI. 8.
259b*
XXXV.
4. 196a.
44
97.
604c.
XXVII. 1.
265b.
44
26. 98b.
“ 105.
22b.
XXVIII. 12-28.
612b.
*44
27. 98b.
“ 111.
22b.
XXIX. 1.
265b.
XXXVI.
6. 89n.
exxv.
2.
106b.
758
INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS.
Psalnss.
CXXXII. 9.
394b.
CXXXVIII. 8.
375b.
CXXXIX. 14.
327c.
“ 19.
192a.
CXLT. 2.
365a.
CXLYI. 6.
381b.
CXLYII. 8.
189c.
Proverbs.
I. 1-6.
211a.
“ 1.
265b.
“ 6.
268b.
“ 7.
157b.
“ 20.
330b.
“ 24-27. 95b * 96b.
III. 4.
505b.
“ 5.
331b.
IY. 14.
331b.
Y. 15-18.304b ,*330b.
“ 19.
305a.
« 22.
197b.
VI. 1.
1 0 1 n.
“ 2.
96b.
“ 6.
268a.
“ 29.
333b.
“ 30.
333a*
“ 31.
333a*
“ 32-35.
333b.
VIII. 1.
330b.
“ 35.
194c*
“ 36.
194c*
IX. 1.
330b.
“ 2.
194a.
X. 1.
265b.
“ 7.
95c.*
“ 8.
95c*
“ 10. 180c,
189c.
XI. 25.
332b*
“ 31.
505b.
XII. 19.
249a*
“ 24.
332b.
XIY. 34.
97b.
XY. 2.
97b.
“ 13.
189c.
XYI. 7.
332c*
“ 13.
332c.*
“ 31.
306c.
XVII. 7.
249b.
XVIII. 4.
501a.
XIX. 2.
194c*
XX. 1.
88a.
“ 11.
331b.
XXII. 2.
223c.*
“ 8.
195c.
“ 13.
309a.
“ 20.
641n.*
“ 21.
64 In.*
XXIV. 5.
89a.
XXV. 1.
265b.
“ 15.
249b.
“ 21.
527b*
Proverbs.
XXY. 22.
527b.*
“ 27.
331b.*
XXVI. 4.
333a.*
“ 5.
333a*
“ 8.
330b*
“ 9.
330b*
“ 10. 269c* 270c.
“ 13.
309a.
“ 16.
384a.
XXIX. 13.
223c.*
XXX. 1.
332a.
“ 15. 268a,
331c*
“ 25-28.
268a.
XXXI. ’ 1.
332a.
Ecclesiastes.
I. 2.
211a.
“ 14.
196b.
II. 8.
308c.
“ 11.
196b.
“ 17.
196b.
“ 19.
196b.
IV. 12. 381b,
587b.
VII. 19.
383b.
IX. 13-18.
330b.*
“ 14.
292b *
“ 15.
292b *
“ 16.
292c.*
“ 17.
292c.
“ 18.
292c.
X. 2.
333c*
XII. 1.
307b*
“ 3.
251a*
“ 8-7.
306b *
Song of Solomon.
I.
12-14.
327b.*
it
14.
177c*
II.
1.
106c.
it
4.
325a*
a
8.
325a*
a
9.
255b*
a
11.
325b.
u
12. 106b, 189c, *325b.
a
16.
255b.
IV.
1-5.
255b.
a
1.
325b.
it
8.
326a.
V. 10-16.
327c *
VI.
8.
325b.
VII.
2-6.
Isaiah.
328a*
I.
3. 85b
•, 97b.
it
8.
255a.*
it
9. 100c,
391a.
It
10.
391a.
a
16.
195c.
u
19.
97c.
a
20.
97c.
a
21.
478n.
Isaiah.
I.
25.
lOln.
it
29.
lOln.
it
30.
255a *
II.
1-4.
416a.
a
2.
553a.
it.
4.
250b *
IV.
4.
384a.
V.
1-6. 286c,*
304a.
tt
7.
287a.
VI.
1-4.
469c.
tt
1-8.
417a.
il
3. 381c, 587a.
it
9. 278c,
511c.
ti
10. 278c,
603b.
511c,
VII.
8.
387c*
tt
14. 494c*
573c.
it
14-16.
494b.
VIII.
3.
376b.
it
6.
106b.
it
7.
349a.
it
8.
349a.
it
18.
876c.
IX.
1-7.
574a.
tt
5.
394c.
X.
1.
196b.
tt
5.
356a*
tt
6.
101a.
XI.
1.
275b.
ik
1-10.
574a.
a
4.
469a.
a
8.
413b.
tt
9.
413b.
u
12.
382a.
XII.
3.
501a.
XIII.
2-13. 413c, 414,*
446n.
it
9.
127a.
u
10. 127a,
446a.
a
17. 414c,
422b.
a
19. 107n,
414c.
it .
19-22.
483a.
XIV.
4.
265b.
tt
9-20.
252b.
XV.
1.
96b.
XVI.
9.
349c.
it
14.
387c.
XVII. 11.
187a.
XX.
2-4. 340b, 373c.
<(
3.
376b.
XXI.
2.
422b.
tt
9.
483a.
XXII.
1.
409b.
<t
13.
193b.*
a
22.
250b*
XXIII.
1.
409b.
XXIV.
5.
196c.
Li
16.
190a.
it
19-23.
127a.
XXV.
6.
190a.
*
INDEX TO SCRIPTURE TEXTS,
759
Isaiah.
Isaiah.
Jeremiah.
XXVI.
19.
575a.
LV.
11.
254b.
XXV. 27-31.
375c.
XXVII.
1.
392c*
U
12.
541a.
“ 31.
543b.
XXVIII.
18.
177c.
LVII.
5.
194b.
“ 32.
543b.
XXIX.
1.
392b*
44
15.
574a.
XXVII. 1-14,
340b.
u
2.
392b*
44
20.
197a *
373c.
u
4.
308c.
LIX. 17. 316c,
317a.
“ 3.
434b.
il
7.
392b*
LX.
1-3.
501a.
XXVIII. 10-17.
340b.
u
8.
255a.*
LXII.
10.
179b.
XXX. 9.
392b.
XXX.
4.
489n.
LXIV.
4.
157c.
“ 12.
187a.
XXXI.
9.
392c.
LXV. 17. 488c,
489n.*
“ 15.
187a.
XXXII.
10.
388c,
389b*
44
18.
490n.
XXXI. 1.
500c.
XXXIV.
1-
10.
127a.
44
25.
413b.
“ 9. 500c,
509a.
u
3.
541a.
LXVI.
3.
195b.
“ 15. 512c,*
513n*
u
4.
446b.*
44
7.
475b.
“ 18.
512c.
u
5.
446b.*
44
8.
475b.
“ 20.
512c.
u
5-
-10.
494c,
44
22.
489n.*
“ 33.
500c.
495a.
44
23.
543b.
XXXII. 3.
288c.
u
6.
81c.
44
24.
488c.
“ 4.
107n.
XXXV.
2.
106c.
“ 5.
107n.
u
3.
97a.
Jeremiah.
“ 24.
107n.
a
10.
490n.
I.
9.
138a,
“ 38.
500c.
XXXVI.
11.
107a.
44
11. 348a*
356b.
XXXVI. 30.
523b.
XL.
3.
179b.
44
12.
348b.
XXXVII. 5.
107n.
u
11.
201c,
202b *
44
13.
349a.*
“ 8.
107ru
u
30.
307a.
44
14.
349a*
“ 9.
107n.
ii
31.
307a.
44
15.
349a*
XL. 1.
513a.
XLI.
4.
469a.
II.
13.
259a*
XLIII. 8-13.
340b,
a
29.
195b.
44
20.
478n.
373c.
XLIII.
14.
K)7n.
III.
3-6.
478n.
XLIV. 22.
195c.
XLIV.
3.
10 In,
501a.
IV.
4.
271c.
XL VI. 22.
608b*
44
6.
469a.
4i
30.
478n.
XLVII. 6.
252b*
44
23.
86a.
V.
21.
603b.
XLIX. 7-22.
416b.
XLV.
1.
146b.
VII.
12.
196a.
“ 16.
260b.
XL VI. 11.
85a.
44
24.
196a.
“ 36. 355c,
382a.
XLVII.
1.
107n.
VIII.
7.
251a*
L. 1. 107n.
XL VIII.
1.
306a.
IX.
1.
253b.
“ 8. 107n,
483a.
44
12.
469a.
X.
11. 107n,
108b.
“ 10.
107n.
4(
20.
483a.
XI.
16.
335b.
“ 13.
107n.
XLIX.
2.
469a.
44
17.
335b.
“ 17-20.
409b.
44
3.
509a.
XIII.
1-11.
340b.
“ 33.
409b.
44
10.
lOln.
44
11.
373c.
LI. 5.
409b.
44
13.
102c.
44
27.
478n.
“ 6. 409b,
483a.
L.
11.
373b.
XIV.
2.
394b.
“ 8.
483a,
LI.
9.
102c.
XV.
16.
369n.
“ 11.
422b.
44
16.
489n.
44
18.
187a.
“ 28.
422b.
LII.
1.
102c,
306a.
XVI.
4-6.
434a.
“ 40.
194a.
44
1-
12.
215a.*
XVII.
9.
186c.*
“ 45.
409b.
44
10.
370a.
44
16.
187a*
44
11.
500c.
XVIII.
1-6. 340b,
373c.
Lamentations
44
13.
190a,*
214c.*
XIX.
1, 2.
373c.
II. 21.
194a.
LIII.
2.
275b.
XXI.
4.
107n.
44
4.
500c.
44
9.
107n.
Ezekiel.
44
6.
lOln.
XXII.
30.
623b.
I. 1. 372a, 400b,-35
432c*
LIV.
7.
97c.
XXIII.
1-4.
320c.
“ 2.
372a.
44
8.
97c.
44
2.
195c.
“ 3. 107n,
400b.
44
8-
10.
334c.
44
14,
391a.
“ 4.
434b.
LV.
6.
98c.
44
29.
254c.*
“ 4-28.
469c.
u
7.
98c.
XXIV.
1-3.
349b*
“ 5-14.
362c.
u
8.
574a.
XXV.
11.
385b.
“ 5. 363b,
382a.
u
9.
574a.
44
12. 385b, 387c.
“ 10.
363b.
a
10.
254b.
44
15-33.375c,*434b.
“ 12.
107n.
760
INDEX TO SCRIPTURE TEXTS
Ezekiel.
I.
13.
107n.
u
15-21. 355n, 362c.
u
18.
382a.
a
20.
382a.
u
26-28. 363a.
a
26.
396c, 469a.
334c, 373a,
u
28.
400b, 434b, 469a.
ii.
1.
400b.
44
2.
400b.
44
8.
369a, 371a.
44
9.
371a, 473b.
III.
3.
369ab, 473b.
44
10.
369b*
44
14.
432c.
44
15.
372b, 373a,
433b.
44
23.
373a.
IV.
1-3.
370a*
44
4-8.
370b*
44
5.
387b*
44
6.
385c, 387b*
44
7.
372c.
44
9-17. 370c*
V.
1-17
370c*
44
2.
372c* 471c.
44
10.
372a.
VI.
1-7.
435a.
44
1.
382a.
VII.
2.
382a.
44
7.
310b.
44
27.
250b*
VIII.
1.
372a, 372b,*
433c.
44
3.
372b, 400b,
Ezekiel.
XXL 10. 194a.
“ 26. 250b.*
XXIII. 29. 249b *
XXIV. 3-12. 373c.*
“ 15-27. 340b.
“ 16-18. 373b.
XXIX. 11. 385b.
« 12. 385b.
XXXII. 2. 255b.
“ 7. 446a.
XXXIII. 21. 434c.
XXXIV. 23. 392b *
“ 24. 392b*
XXXVI. 1-15. 435a.
“ 16-38. 435a.
“ 28. 500c.
XXXVII. 1-14. 349c,*
435a, 575a.
“ 9. 382a.
“ 15-28. 435a.
“ 24. 392b.
“ 27. 500c.
XXXVIII. 1-13. 435b.*
“ 24-23. 535b*
XXXIX. 1-16. 435b*
“ 17-29. 435b*
“ 23. 196b.
XL. 2. 436a.
XLIII. 2. 469a.
XLIV. 20. 262b.
XLVIII. 35. 574c.
Daniel.
I. 4. 107cn, 108an.
II. 2-5. 107n.
IV.
V.
U
u
VI.
u
401b.
U
4. 107an, 108a, 109a.
U
24-26.
460n.
IX. 6.
193b,
354b.
U
4-7.
107n.
it
25.
384b,* 386a,
X. 9-13.
355n.
u
10.
107n.
389b, 445b, 460b,
XI. 13-20.
432c.
u
19.
397a.
474a, 596n.
“ 19.
271c.
u
20.
111a.
u
26.
426b.
“ 20.
500c.
u
31-45.
352b* 418b*
u
27.
457a.*
XII. 2.
511c,
603b.
u
32.
113c, 395b.
u
28.
107n, 388a*
“ 3-8.
373b.
u
33.
395b, 421b.
VIII.
1-12.
417b.
“ 3-20.
340b.
u
34.
421b, 447a.
•<
1.
422b.
“ 18.
373b.
u
35.
447a.
u
2.
424b.
XIII. 10-15.
310a.*
LL
36-45.
422c.
u
3.
41 In*
“ 11-15.
256b.
u
37.
395b, 422a.
u
4.
411n*
XVI. 21.
194b.
a
38. 113c, 353a, 395b,
u
8. 353a, 382a, 411a*
“ 44-59.
391a*
422ac.
425c, 426a*
XVII. 2-10.
274a.*
u
39.
424c,* 425a.
u
9.
410bc,* 425c,*
“ 11-21.
274b.
u
40. 395c, 420c* 423b.
426a.*
“ 22-24. 274b, 275b,*
u
41.
415c*
u
9-12.
460b, 596n.
432c.
u
42.
415c,* 423a.
u
14.
384c* 386b.*
XIX. 1-9.
31 On.
u
43.
423a.
u
17.
400c.*
“ 10-14.
31 On.
a
44.
421b*
u
18.
400c.*
XX. 27.
196b.
in.
8.
111c*
u
20.
353b* 423c,
“ 28.
194b.
u
19.
478a.
424a,* 425c.
“ 48.
543b.
u
25.
112a.
u
21.
336a, 353b,*
XXI. 4.
543b.
IV.
7.
107n.
422b, 423a.
a 6.
340b,
373b.
u
10-14.
112b*
u
21-23.
425c.*
1.
340b.
u
16.
384a, 388a.
a
22.
353a.
VII.
u
a
u
u
u
u
Daniel.
32. 388a
7. 107n, 394a.
11. 107n.
30. 108n, 422a.
31. 419b, 422a, 423c.
1. 424a.
2. 422a.
3. 422a.
25. 422b, 424a.
26. 424a.
1-8. 353a*
1. 422a, 397a, 401a.
2. 382a.
3. 409c* 418b*
4. 113c, 476a.
5. 411n,*424c*
6. 411n,*425a,
426a, 476a.
7. 383b,* 410c,*
426a.
8. 410bc,* 426a,
460b, 596n.
9. 396c, 469a, 574b.
9-12. 426b.*
9-14. 450b.
10. 426b, 574b.
11. 426b, 461b, 483c.
13. 396c, 444n, 446c.*
14. 444n.
17. 353a.
17-27. 422c.
22. 484b.
23. 353a, 423b.
24. 336a, 353a, 383b,*
426a.
INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS.
701
Daniel.
VIII. 23-
25. 460n, 596n.
IX. 1.
108n, 422a,
424a.
“ 2.
385b, 388ac.
“ 4-
19. 139a.
“ 21.
401a.
“ 24-
27. 388b.*
“ 24.
385b.
** “ 26.
474b.
“ 27.
384c, 574b.
X. 2-
3. 388b.
“ 5.
469a.
“ 6.
469a.
“ 14.
553a.
XI. 3.
425a.*
“ 6.
423a.
“ 7.
474a.
“ 21.
423ab,* 460n.
“ 36.
‘ 460b.
“ 36-38. 460n, 569n.
XII. 2.
574c,* 575a.
“ 3.
574c.*
“ 7.
384b,* 386a,
445b.
“ 11.
385a,* 386b,
389c.
“ 12.
386b, 389c.
Hosea.
I. 1.
378a.
“ 2.
249c* 373c,*
376c.
“ 3.
374c*
“ 10.
377b.
“ 11.
377b.
II. 1.
377b.
“ 2.
377c.
“ 14.
377c.
“ 15.
377cn*
“ 22.
377c.
“ 23.
377c.
III. 1.
373c,* 378a*
“ 2.
378a.*
“ 5.
392b.
IV. 16.
260a.
VI. 5.
193b.
“ 7.
196c.
VIII. 1.
196c.
“ 13.
392a.*
IX. 3.
392a*
“ 7.
406a.
“ 15.
195c.
“ 16.
193a.
X. 5.
195b.
“ 8.
195b.
XI. 1.
495n, 500c,
508c,* 509a.
XII. 10.
412n.*
XIII. 2.
194b.
“ 8.
258b.
XIV. 2.
501a, 572b.*
Joel.
I. 1.
429c*
“ 1-12.
•429c.*
“ 4.
429c.
“ 13-20.
430a*
11. 1-11. 430b,* 471c.
“ 8.
179b.
£t 10.
446a.
“ 12-27.
430c.*
“ 12.
572b.
“ 27.
429c.
28. 429c, 472b.
“ 28-32.
431a*
“ 30.
451a.*
4 31. 306b, 446a, 451a.*
“ 32.
572b.
III. 1-17.
431b*
“ 2-14.
432c,
“ 14.
450n.
“ 18-21.
431c.*
“ 21.
429c.
Amos.
V. 2.
373b.
“ 21.
572c*
“ 22.
572c.*
VII. 9.
249a.
VIII. 1.
349c.*
“ 3.
349c.*
“ 5.
354c.
IX. 13.
541a.
Obadiah.
4.
260b.
9.
192b.*
Jonah.
I. 9.
76n.
“ 16.
194b.
II. 3.
500b.
III. 4.
388a.
Micali.
I. 4.
541a.
“ 9.
187a.
II. 4.
265b.
IV. 1.
275c.
“ 1-3.
416b.
“ 2.
275c.
VI. 6-8.
573b*
VII. 6.
225a.*
IVahum.
I. 3-6.
127a.
II. 3.
394ae.
Habakkuk.
I. 6.
107n.
II. 6.
265b.
“ 9.
260b.
III. 10.
251c*
17. 98c, 99a* |
Haggai.
II. 6.
489b.1*
“ 7.
489b,* 490an.
“ 9.
490a, 575a.
Zechariah.
I. 4.
196a.
“ 8-11. 355bc.
“ 8.
394c, 430a.
“ 10.
353b,* 433a.
“ 11.
353b*
“ 18.
353c,* 430a.
“ 19.
353c,* 433a.
“ 20.
354a*
“ 21.
354a,* 433a.
II. 6.
382a, 483a.
“ 7.
483a.
III. 1.
351a.
IV. 2.
350b, 469b.
“ 2-14. 350b*
“ 3.
335b* 417c.
“ 14.
335b, 417c.
V. 1-4.
354b*
“ 6.
354b.*
“ 8.
354b,* 354n.
“ 11.
355a.
VI. 1-7.
417b.
“ 1-8.
355b,* 430a.
“ 2. •
470a.
“ 3.
394b, 470a.
“ 5.
382a, 433a.
9-15.
340c.
VII. 11.
260a.*
VIII. 8.
500c.
IX. 10.
379c.
X. 2.
195b.
“ 11.
250b*
XI. 1.
102c.
“ 2.
102c.
“ 4-17.
320c.
“ 4-14.
375c.*
“ 4.
402a.
“ 10-14.
402a.
“ 13.
254a.*
XII. 10.
468b.
“ 11.
447c.
“ 12.
447c, 468n.
XIII. 7.
102c.
XIV. 16.
339a.
Malachi.
I. 1.
575a.
“ 2.
225c.
“ 3.
225c.
II. 17.
196a.
III. 1.
217c, 502c.
IV. 5.
218a, 392b*
481b ,*629b.
Matthew.
I. 1-17. 521a.*
“ 1. 559a.
762
INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS.
U
VIII.
(1
a
u
407n.
134a.
134a.
Oc, 506a.
134a.
Matthew.
Matthew.
Matthew.
I.
11.
122b.
IX
2.
121c.
XIII
32.
139c, 275c.
n
12.
523a.
ii
•4.
134a.
it
35.
512b*
tt
13.
523b.
it
5.
121c.
it
36.
280a.
it
15.
523c.
a
8.
134a.
it
36-43.
28 In.
a
16.
523an.
a
9.
134a.
it
37-43.
313n.
a
17.
443n, 520a.
it
11.
134a.
LI
38.
286a.*
a
18.
506b.
it
17.
198a*
it
45.
261c.
it
20.
397a, 521b.
it
19.
134a.
a
46.
261c.
u
22.
494c, 505c*
It
27.
522a.
a
47-50.
280b*
506a * 508n.
X.
1.
182b,
385c.
tt
49.
284a.
<(
24.
134a.
it
6.
291b.
a
52.
284c, 593c.
II.
3.
134a.
it
15.
134b.
XV.
1-9.
629a.
ii
12.
397a.
it
16.
299a.
tt
1-10.
614a.
a
13.
397a.
it
19.
141b.
a
14.
302c.
a
15.
500c, 505c,
it
20.
141b.
a
15.
302c.
508c* 509n.*
it
27.
122b.
a
22.
522a.
it
16.
513a.
tt
29.
145b.
a
24.
591b.
it
17.
512c.*
a
30.
145b.
XVI.
4.
452n.
a
18.
512c*
it
34-39.
224b.*
a
0.
315a.
a
19.
397a.
a
37.
224b*
a
12.
315a.
a
20.
125b.
XI.
2.
217b*
tt
16-18.
225c*
a
23.
506a.
it
3.
217b *
a
17.
157b.
III.
2.
218a.
it
4-6.
2] 7b*
a
18.177a, 225c, 226c,
a
4.
309a.
a
5.
216a.*
228bc, 312a.
a
5.
249c*
tt
10.
502n.
a
19.
250b.
it
11.
575b.
it
12. 215c, 21Sn
221c.
it
28.
438c, 452a,
IV.
2.
385b.
a
14. 392b, 481b, 482a,
575b, 629b.
458a,* 490a.
it
12.
134a.
XVII.
2.
255b, 394b.
a
14.
605c.
u
15.
218a.
a
10-13. 392b, 575b,
a
17.
218a.
tt
16.
443n.
629b.
V.
9.
180b*
a
25.
157b.
tt
17.
443n.
a
13.
186a * 261a *
XII.
14.
143c*
XVIII. 21.
293b.
302b.
a
17.
506a.
U
22.
293b.
ii
14-
16.
261b*
a
25.
134a.
it
23-34.
293b.
it
14.
350b.
tt
32.
592a*
XIX. 20.
199b.
a
15.
356b.
a
33.
531b*
U
21.
294c.
u
22.
113n, 134b*
u
39.
340b,* 452n.
it
23-26.
294c.
526a*
a
40.
250c,
452n.
tt
27.
293c, 294c,*
it
39.
626a*
a
43-45.
472b*
313c.
a
43.
626c*
XIII.
1.
280b*
it
28. 295bc* 484b,
it
44.
526c*
tt
2.
280b* 282b*
489n.
VI.
1.
134b*
tt
3.
262n,
278c,
it
29.
295bc*
a
9-
13.
139c.
302a.
XX.
1-16.
293c.*
It
11.
179b,* 230n.*
a
4-9.
139c.
it
16.
295n, 297n,
it
24.
225b.*
a
6.
284c*
313c.
tt
28.
122c.
it
7.
285a.
XXL
4.
505c.
u
34.
179c, 251c*
tt
9.
283a.
a
13.
480a.
VII.
2.
355a.
tt
10-17.
278b.
u
31.
135b*
n
7.
261c, 280a.
u
11.
158a,
532c.
tt
33-44. 287a,* 288a*
a
14.'
200n.
a
11-15.
.
279a*
tt
43.
288a.
it
15-
20.
257c *
a
14.
511c.
a
45.
278a, 288a.
it
3 7.
262n.
it
15.
511c.
XXII.
2-14.
289b *
it
24-
27.
255c*
tt
18-23.
281n.
a
7. 290b* 475b.
it
26.
310c.
it
19.
2S2b.*
a
11-14.
291b *
24-30.
25.
29.
30.
31.
31-33.
139c,
31 3n.
285a*
285a.
180c.
275c.
487b.
XXIII.
29-32.
39.
41-46.
43.
44.
13.
510b.
481a.
510b.
141b.
121c.
320a.
INDEX TO
SCRIPTURE TEXTS.
763
Matthew.
•
Matthew.
Mark.
XXIII.
16-24. 614 a.
XXY.
13. 599b.
VIII.
35.
470b.
a
27. 310a.
u
14-30. 224a,*
IX.
1.
438c.
u
34-36. 478c.
440a, 443a.
U
3.
394b,
452a.
u
34-37. 288c.
u
14. 439a.
U
8.
122c.
u
34-38. 470c, 47Sc.
u
16-22 285c.
U
48.
591c.
u
34-39. 438a.
u
28. 279n.
X.
5.
578b.
cc
35. 288c * 292a,
u
29. 279n.
u
20.
199b.
461c.
a
30. 591c.
u
51.
113n.
u
36. 288c,* 461c.
u
3 1-46.43 lb, 440a,
XI.
13.
335b.
u
39. 44 In.
443a, 444a.
449a,*450bc,*
a
14.
335b.
XXIY.
1-28. 439a.
u
25.
506c,
* 507n.
U
2. 443b.
486a, 487a,*
XII.
1-
12.
288a*
a
3. 438b,* 440b,
594a.
u
12.
278a.
44 In, 442n.*
u
34. 486b.
u
26.
504a.
u
4-14. 439c.
u
41. 294b, 486c.
iC
29.
380c.
14
4-51. 442'bc.
a
44. 487n.
a
31.
581a.
a
5. 460a, 498b.
u
46. 486b.
u
32.
380c.
u
7. 430a.
XXYI. 26-29. 140a.
u
44.
199b.
a
9. 470c.
U
26. 147c.
XIII.
2.
443b.
a
11. 460a.
u
28. 199a.
u
3.
438b.
> u
12. 460a.
u
29. 19 Sab*
u
4.
438b, 440b.
u
14. 443c, 444a,*
u
52. 273b.
u
14.
574b.
553b.
a
64. 469a.
1C
24.
448c*
u
15-28. 439c.
u
68. 407n.
u
27.
382a.
a
15. 472c, 574b.
XXYII. 19. 594b.
u
30.
438c,
443b.*
u
16. 476a, 483a.
U
25. 469a.
u
32.
444n ,*
449n*
a
21. 448b*
U
30. 254a*
456a, 457a.
a
22. 448b*
u
33. 113n.
u
35.
444n.*
(4
24. 460a, 498b.
u
37. 140a.
XIV.
3.
179c,*
180a*
44
27. 451c.
u
52. 448a,* 594b,
u
22-
24.
140a.
a
28. 121b, 4 8 On.
464n,* 465c.
ii
22.
147c.
44
29. 306b, 446a,
u
53. 448i,*464n*
u
36.
113n,
125a.
448b,* 452a *
465c,*
CL
65.
407n.
470c, 483b,
u
60. 198b.
XV.
26.
140a.
48 9n, 497a*
XXVIII.
1. 565n.
U
32.
254a*
44
29-31. 439a, 443c,
u
3. 255b, 394b.
XVI.
2.
565n.
445c,* 448b,*
u
8. 565n.
u
8.
565n.
449a, 461a,
u
9. 565n.
u
9.
565n.
596n.
u
10. 565n.
u
10.
565n.
44
29-36. 440n.
u
19. 182b, 381c,
ll
11.
565n.
44
29-44. 440a.
589b.
u
17.
198c,*
402b.
44
30. 446c,* 452a*
468b.
Mark.
Luke.
44
30-34. 473a.
I.
6. 309a.
I.
1.
558a.
44
31. 382a, 447cn,*
u
10. 502n.
u
3.
144c,*
554c.
471a.
III. 29. 592b.*
u
4.
564c.
44
34. 438c, 443bn,*
IY.
3-9. 139c.
a
10.
365a.
458a*
U
10. 280a.
u
15.
125a.
44
35. 439a.
U
12. 279n*
u
17. 481b, 585b,
629b.
44
36. 439a, 449n,
U
13. 280a.
u
32.
521b.
497b.
u
30-32. 139c.
ll
46-55.
139a.
44
40-41. 447c.
Y. 35. 123a.
u
50.
122a.
44
40. 458b*
U
41. 113n, 147n.
u
58.
122a.
44
41. 122c, 458b*
YI.
11. 134b.*
a
66.
125b.
44
42-44. 457c.
VII.
1-13. 629a.
u
67.
407n.
44
42. 599b.
U
5-13. 614a.
u
70.
•
566c.
44
43. 439a.
U
11. 113n.
u
80.
122b.
44
44. 599b.
It
34. 113n, 147n.
ii.
1.
250c,*
444a.
44
45-51. 440a.
VIII.
12. 125c.
(4
7.
122b.
XXV.
1. 383b, 490n.
u
15. 315a.
U
14.
180c.
44
1-13. 440a, 443a.
u
27-30. 225c.
U
15.
125a.
764
INDEX TO SCRIPTURE TEXTS,
Luke.
II. 32.
564b.
44
40.
122b.
44
45.
521c.
III.
23-28.
521a.*
44
23.
521n,* 523a.
u
24.
523c.
u
26.
523c.
u
27.
523b.*
u
27-31.
523b.
u
38.
212a, 564c.
126a, 278b.
IV.
22.
a
23. 265c, 276c, 278b,
329a.*
u
36.
182b.
V.
1-10.
202a.*
u
8.
122c.
u
20.
121c.
VII. 27.
502n.
VIII.
5-8.
139c.
a
8.
283a.
u
10.
279n*
<L
11.
283n, 285c.*
44
12.
283a.
u
14.
199bc.*
u
18.
279n*
u
29.
122a.
u
31.
481a.
IX.
1-6.
273a.
u
18-21.
225c.
u
27.
438c, 452a.
u
55.
182a.
X.
1. 297c,385c ,* 520b.
4c
18.
472n, 476a.
44
27.
581a.
44
30.
145c.
44
30-37.
280c,* 293b.
XI.
2-4.
139c.
44
3.
179b,* 2 3 On.*
44
5-8.
293b.
XII.
1.
315a.
u
16-20.
293b*
(4
28.
121c.
44
38.
444n.*
XIII.
1-5.
292a*
4.
6-9.
291c,* 335b.
44
18.
139c.
44
19.
139c.
44
29.
382a.
44
32.
248b.
XIV.
14.
464b.
44
16-24.
289b*
44
16.
290c* 291b.
44
23.
216c.*
44
26.
224a * 225a.
XV.
2.
297c.
44
8,
122b.
44
12.
199c.
44
30.
199c.
XVI.
1-13.
297b*
44
8. 126a,* 298an,*
355a, 443n.
Luke.
XVI. 9. 126a* 183c.
“ - 9-13.
300c.*
“ 16. 218b* 221c.
“ 19-31.
301b.*
“ 25.
294b.
“ 29.
249a.*
XVII. 20.
447a.*
n 22.
444n.*
XVIII. 1-8.
444n.*
“ 1-14.
293b.
“ 8.
460a.
“ 21.
199b.
“ 30.
295n.
XIX. 11-27.
224a*
44
12.
280b,*
: 444n.*
44
16-:
L9.
285 c.
XX.
9-:
18.
288a*
44
li.
125c.
44
19.
278a,
288a.
44
21.
125b.
44
35.
464b,*
484b.
44
36.
464b*
484b.
XXI.
4.
199c.
5-7. 444n*
44
6.
438b, 443b.
44
7.
438b, 440b.
44
10.
430a.
44
11.
430a, 451b*
44
14.
125b.
44
16.
. 470b.
44
19.
470b.
44
20.
472c, 574 b. 1
44
21.
476a.
44
24.
125b, 443c,
445an,* 449n,
473c, 474a.
44
25-
•26. 471 bn.
44
25-
-27. 445n*
44
28.
445n.
44
32.
438c, 443b*
44
38.
122c.
XXII.
15.
125c.*
44
19.
140a, 147c.
44
20.
140a.
44
28-
30. 484b.
44
36.
273a*
44
64.
407m
XXIII.
38.
140a, 273c.
XXIV.
1.
565n.
44
8.
141c.
44
9-
11. 565n.
44
13.
565n.
44
19.
407n.
44
22.
122c.
44
25.
346a.*
44
26.
508a.
44
27.
18c, 249a,*
62Sa, 692b.
44
44.
18c, 508a*
44
49.
402b.
John.
I. 1. 47a, 588c*n-
“ 3. 589a.
“ 4. 589a.
“ 11. 288c.
“ 14. 146c. 588n, 589a *
44
18.
588bn.*
44
23.
575b.
44
41-43.
226b*
44
43.
226c.
a
52.
398b.
II.
15.
480a.
44
19.
274a.
44
19-21.
452n.*
44
22.
141c.
44
25.
271b.
III.
1-13.
271b*
44
3-8.
593b.
44
4.
182b.
-44
•
5.
366a.
44
8.
182ab *
*4
9.
182b.
-44
14.
341a*n.
44
15.
341a*
U
16.
578c, 591a *
44
20.
1 56c.
44
29.
125c, 490n.
IV. 10-15.
272a.
44
19.
' 407n.
44
22.
68c.
U
23.
157b*
44
24. 157b,* 182b, 589c*
44
32-38.
272a*
V.
2.
1 13n.
44
11.
121c.
44
15.
121c.
44
22.
450b.*
44
24-29.
464c*
44
27.
450b*
44
28.
493a.
44
39. 18c,
200n, 510b,
629a
,, 692b.
44
40.
510b.
VI. 15.
218b.
44
17.
122b.
(4
39.
367n.
44
53-59.
272a.
it
63.
182a.
VII.
12.
123a.
44
30.
121c.
44
32.
122c.
44
38.
501a.
44
40.
407n.
IX.
22.
318a.
*4
30-33.
318c.
44
39-41.
319b.
X.
1-16.
317a*
44
6.
265c, 329a.
44.
17.
318a.
44
34-36.
510b.
XI. 25.
465c.
44
51.
407n.
INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS. 765
John.
XII. 3. 179c* 180a.
“ 13. 125a.
“ 16. 141c.
“ 23-33. 553h.
“ 25. 225c.
“ 31. ' 476a.
“ 38. 505c.
a
24.
133c*
a
34.
198b*
XIV.
2.
183c,
184b.
a
4.
398b.
a
6.
398b.
a
23.
361a.
a
25.
576a.
a
26.
141c,
503b,
576a, 589c.
XV.
1.
302a, 303n,
320n*
a
1-10.
320c.
a
1-6.
593b.
a
2.
279n.
a
25.
505c.
a
26.
589c.
XVI.
7-15.
576a.
a
7.
589c.
a
13-15.
141c.
a
15.
329a.
a
29.
329a.
a
33.
180c.
XVII.
7.
122a.
a
12.
505c.
a
17.
22b,
582b.
a
21-23.
361a*
a
24.
367n*
XVIII.
9.
505c.
a
22.
527a.
a
23.
527a.
a
28.
121a.
a
32.
505c.
a
36.
273b.
XIX.
12.
480a.
a
13.
1 13n.
a
15.
480a*
a
17.
1 13n.
tt
19.
140a.
a
20.
113n.
a
24.
505c.
a
36.
505c.
a
41.
198b*
XX.
2.
565n.
a
4.
565n.
a
12.
394b.
a
16.
147n.
a
18.
565n.
a
25.
336n.
a
31.
211a,
561b.
XXI.
L
565n.
a
15.
148a.
a
15-17.
200b*
a
18.
273c.*
John.
XXI. 21-24. 473b.
“ 23.
558a.
“ 25.
253b.
Acts.
I. 1.
576b.
“ 7.
449n.
“ 10.
349b.
“ 11.
468n *
“ 16.
508a, 566b.
“ 18.
121c.
“ 19.
113n.
“ 21.
557c.
“ 22.
557c.
II. 3.
402b,* 408n.*
“ 4.
198c, 402b*
“ 4-13.
230n*
“ 5, 6.
127c.
“ 5-12.
403b*
“ 5.
613c.
“ 9-11.
127c*
“ 13.
403a.
“ 17.
432a.
“ 23.
469a.
“ 25-31.
630b*
“ 28.
199n.
“ 36.
469a.
“ 47.
456a.
III. 18.
566c.
IV. 17.
125c.
“ 27.
479n.
V. 4.
125b.
“ 19.
576a.
“ 20.
576a.
“ 23.
319c.
“ 30.
469a.
VI. 1.
123a, 613c.
VII. 14.
519n.
“ 16.
150a*
“ 25.
102b.
“ 38.
176c*
“ 43.
336n.
“ 44.
336n.
“ 52.
288c.
“ 53.
566c.
“ 54.
150a.
“ 56.
576a.
VIII. 1.
476a.
“ 29.
576b.
“ 39.
576b.
IX. 10.
576b.
“ 15.
126a.
“ 17.
576b.
“ 36.
122b.
X. 3-7.
576b.
“ 9.
401a *
“ 9-16.
576b.
“ 10.
401a*
“ 43.
18c.
“ 46.
119n, 402b.
XI. 16.
141c.
Acts.
XI. 18.
200n.
it
26.
644b.
it
27.
407n.
tt
28.
407n.
XII.
3.
125c.
tt
6.
319c.
tt
7.
576a.
tt
14.
319c.
u
21.
594b.
tt
22.
461b.*
tt
23.
461b*
XIII.
1.
407n.
tt
18.
180c.
tt
21.
515b.
tt
22.
522a.
tt
23.
522a.
it
33.
504a.
tt
46.
291b.
tt
48.
200n.
XIV.
13.
319c.
4 4
16.
44 3 n.
XV. 21.
443n.
it
32.
407n.
tt
40.
235a.
it
41.
235a.
XVI.
6. 235b,
240b,
24 In.
tt
7. 240b,
9. 397a,
576b.
tt
576b.
tt
12-40.
235c.
tt
26.
576a.
tt
34.
122c.
XVII.
22.
236a.
it
25.
199c.
it
28. 120b,
501c.
XVIII.
9.
397a.
it
12.
594b.
it
16.
594b.
it
24. 611b,
638a.
XIX.
1.
121c.
it
6.
402c.
tt
32.
176n.
it
33.
176n.
tt
39.
176c.
it
40.
I76n.
XX.
28.
177a.
-t t
35.
501a.
XXI.
10.
407n.
it
11.
407n.
ii
40.
1 1 3n.
XXII.
2.
1 1 3n.
tt
17.
4 Oja.
ii
17-21.
576b.
XXIII.
3. 121c,
310a,.
527a.
ii
25.
386n.
XXV.
6.
594b.
it
10.
594b.
tt
11.
528n.
tt
17.
594b.
XXVI.
4.
199b.
766
INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS.
Acts.
Romans.
1 Corinthians.
XXVI. 7.
123a.
IX. 13.
225c.
IV.
8. 253c.*
a
14,
113n.
LL
14.
324a.
LL
14. 254a.
XXVII. 20.
550a.
LL
23.
122a.
Ll
18. 313a.
LL
23.
397a.
X. 9.
228c.
V.
1. 313b.
u
37.
250c.
L
12.
580c.
LL
2. 313b.
XXVIII. 3.
237n*
L
14.
177a.
LL
5. ' 814b.
L
15.
177a.
LL
6-8. 314c*
Romans.
XI. 2.
433b, 504a.
LL
6. 3l7n.
I.
3.
522a.
LL
3.
125b.
LL
7. 199a * 260c*
ll
7.
177a.
LL
5.
250a*
364n, 593b.
u
16.
213c*
LL
7.
250a *
Ll
8. 260c.
u
22.
188a*
LL
12.
390c.
VI.
1. 313b.
II.
28.
182a*
LL
25. 279b, 390c, 445n.
LL
2. 484b.
(4
29.
182a.*
LL
33-36.
214b.
VIII.
4. 380c.
III.
1.
604a.
LL
33.
271a.
IX.
1. 557c.
ll
2.
597a,
604a.
XII. 1.
317n.
X.
1-4. 321b.
u
9-19.
510a.
LL
4.
255c.
LL
1-5. 337n.
ll
13.
122a.
LL
5.
177b.
LL
1-11. 334c.
a
20.
529a,
531b.
LL
6.
406n, 579an.*
LL
5. 324a.
• ll
21.
214a.*
LL
18.
527a *
IL
6. 337n*
ll
24-26.
591a.
LL
19.
528a.
LL
11. 337n ,* 339c,
n
25.
362b *
XIII. 1-5.
526b.
441b*
Li
28.
338c,
529a.
LL
1.
527c,*
LL
14. 123a.
a
30.
250a*
LL
4.
528an.*
Li
21. 250a’.*
IV.
3.
510a,
529a.
U
6.
527a *
XI.
8. 567b.
ll
10.
338c,
530b.
LL
12.
186b *31 6c.
U
21. 313b.
Li
11.
530b.
XIV. 10.
594b*
LL
23-25. 140a.
V.
1.
123c.
XV. 4.
659c.
LL
23-26. 230a.
a
6-10.
591a.
LL
20.
228a.
LL
24. 147c.
Li
12.
200n.
XVI. 5.
177a.
LL
27. 135a*
a
12-21.
343b*
LL
20.
180c.
LL
29. 134c*
a
14.
334c,
337n ,*
LL
25.
279b.
XII.
10. 402c, 403b.
338b, 343b.
LL
12-28. 177b.
Li
14-20.
337a.
1 Corinthians.
U
12. 255c.
LI
15-17.
343c.
I.
2.
177a.
LL
28. 402c.
U
17.
363c.
LL
12.
121c.
XIII.
1. 402c,* 404a.
a
19.
338b.
LL
14.
139c.
LL
2. 531b.
VI.
3-11.
264b.
LL
16.
139c.
LL
9. 409a.
LL
4.
199a,* 263c.*
LL
18.
280a.
a
12. 270c.*
LL
5.
209a,
264a.
LL
20.
186a,
XIV.
2-19. 402c* 403a*
a
6.
209a,
264a.
LL
22.
128a.
LL
2. 404a.
LL
8.
264a.
LL
24.
128a.
LL
3. 407n.
LL
11.
264a.
LL
27-29.
149c.*
LL
4. 407n.
a
17.
336n.
II.
1.
149b.
LL
5. 122b.
VII.
1-6.
321a.
LL
1-5.
228a*
LL
6. 428a*
44
6.
199a.
LL
4.
149b.
LL
18. 188a.
44
7-13.
531b.
LL
5.
150a.
LL
24. 407n.
VIII.
1.
134a*
ll
6. 149b, 182a, 641n.
LL
25. 407n.
44
2.
184 c.
LL
7-11.
157c.
LL
29. 188a.
44
3.
341a.
n
7.
641n.
LL
31. 407n.
44
4.
134a,*
184c.
LL
9.
271a.
LL
34. 187c*
a
5-8.
184c.
LL
13.
138a.
LL
35. 187c.*
44
6.
157c.
Ll
14'.
156b, 271c.
XV.
1-22. 594b.
44
7.
156c.
III.
3.
313a,
U
4-7. 230a.
44
9-11.
182b.
LL
6.
312b.
LL
6. 207c.
44
11.
465b,
594c.
LL
9.
122b, 177b.
LL
8. 122c.
44
15.
125a.
LL
10.
227c* 312b.
LL
12. 313b.
44
19-23.
127a.
LL
10-15.
310c*
LL
14. 554a.
44
28-30.
433a.
LL
11.
228ab.
LL
15. 654a.
44
29.
433b.
Ll
22.
199c.
LL
19. 199c.
(4
33-35.
252c.*
IV.
7.
254a.
LL
20-28. 462c.*
INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS,
767
1 Corinthians.
XV.
23.
465c.
44
24. 390c, 450b, 486a.
44
25.
390c.
44
31.
456c.
44
32.
456c.
44
33.
315a., 501c.
317n.
44
36.
44
87.
594c.
44
39-45.
594c.
44
45-49.
337a.
44
45.
338b.
44
47-54.
184b.
44
47. *
567b.
44
51.
448a.* 455b, :
456c.
44
52. 338c, 448a,*
455b,* 463c.
44
53.
184b.
XVI.
8.
314n, 316b.
44
22.
113n.
3 Corinthians.
II. 17.
22c.
III. 5.
151 n.
“ 6.
15 In, 199a.*
“ 13-16.
321a.*
“ 14—16.
618a.
IV. 16.
122b.
“ 17.
184a*
V. 1-4.
183b*
“ 3.
317n.
“ .4.
199n.
“ 7.
' 271b.
“ 10.
594b*
“ 14.
208c*
V 17.
593b.
VI. 16-18.
500c. '
VIII. 21.
505b.*
X. 4.
484a.
XI. 21.
139c.
“ 23.
139c.
XII. 1-4.
401a,* 576b.
“ 4.
404a, 428a.
7.
125a, 401b.
“ 11.
139c.
XIII. 11.
180c.
“ 13.
689b.
“ 14.
381c.
Galatians.
I. 13.
629b.
“ 14.
629b.
“ 16.
316c.
II. 6.
125b, 577b.
“ 9.
227b,* 243b*
630a, 557c, 577b.
“ 15.
528c.*
“ 16.
528c.*
III. 1.
152a.
“ 13.
341a.
“ 19.
566c.
III.
Gaiatians.
Ephesians.
24.
338a.
VI.
13-
-17. 186c.5!
a
25.
344b.
44
17.
273b.
<4
27.
317n, 580c.
44
21.
139b.
44
28.
580c.
IV.
3.
183a.*
Fhilippaans.
44
8.
183a.*
I.
7.
236c.
44
9.
183a*
44
13.
122a, 236c.
44
13.
235b.
44
14.
236c.
44
21-31.
303a, 321a*
44
20.
199c.
44
21.
630a.
II.
7.
588b.
44
24.
265c.
44
15.
350b.
44
25.
478b.
III.
7-
11. 456c.
44
26.
475b.
44
10.
464ab,* 465b,
V.
2.
219a*
485b.
44
3.
219a.*
44
11.
464ab,* 484b.
44
4.
218c*
44
17.
336n.
44
6.
531b.
44
21.
594c.
44
9.
315a, 3l7n.
IV.
6.
122b.
44
20.
123a.
44
8.
23c.
VI.
1.
182a.
44
15-
-18. 139b, 236c.
44
7.
317n.
44
18.
317n.
44
15.
693b.
Colossians.
Ephesians.
I.
6.
444a.
I.
7.
591a.
44
18.
177b, 463a.
44
15.
367a*
44
20.
180c, 363b.
44
17.
158a*
44
23.
444a.
44
18.
126a,* 158a*
44
26.
279b.
44
19.
126a.
II.
7.
311c.
44
22.
177a.
44
8.
183a, 614a, 629c.
44
23. 177b, 452n, 490a.
44
12.
209n, 263c,*
II.
10.
367a.*
264b.*
44
14.
180c.
44
17.
338a.
44
15.
198a, 199a*
4i
20.
183a.
44
20.
177b, 243c *
44
23.
180c*
313a.
III.
3.
209 b.
44
20-22.
227a.* 227c,
44
10.
122b, 198a, 199a*
228b, 311c.
44
22.
123a, 580c.
44
21.
122b, 177b.
IV.
11.
126c.
44
22.
229a, 361a.
44
14.
126c.
III.
5.
18b, 227a,
407n.
1 Thessallonians.
44
16.
122b.
I.
1.
177a.
4t
18.
261c,* 262n*
44
7.
336n.
44
21.
177a.
II.
1.
139b.
IV.
11.
227a.
44
12.
177a.
44
12.
22c.
44
13.
141c.
44
13.
22c.
44
17.
139b.
44
24.
265c,* 317n.
44
18.
139b.
V.
2.
3l7n.
III.
1.
139b, 236a.
44
8.
250a, 350b.
IV. 13-
17. 454a*
44
8-10.
364c*
44
13.
456c.*
44
14.
. 501a.
44
15.
455b,* 456n.
44
23.
490a.
44
16.
448a, *463c, 465c,
44
26.
490b.
473a, 596n.
44
27.
328a, 490b.
44
17.
448a,* 455b,*
44
31-33.
325a.
463c.
VI.
5.
580c.
V.
1.
44 9n.
44
6.
123a.
4 4
1-
10. 457c.
44
11-17.
316b,* 484 a.
44
2.
449n.
44
12.
476n.*
44
8.
186c, 31Gc, 317a.
768
INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS
2 Thessaloiiinns.
I.
7.
462a.*
44
8.
462a.*
II.
1-8.
236a.
44
1-10.
459a.*
44
2.
603b.
44
3-10.
476b, 596n .*
44
3-8.
498b.
4t
4.
46 In.*
44
5-7.
479b.
44
8.
483c, 596n*
III.
9.
336n.
1 Timothy.
I.
4.
614a, 629c.
4l
16.
200n.
II.
2.
199c*
44
7.
177a.
III. 13.
121c.
44
15.
228a.*
44
16.
L36an,*589a *
IY.
1-3.
460a.
44
7.
629c.
44
12.
199b, 336n.
YI.
1.
580c.
44
2.
580c.
44
20.
614a, 629c.
2 Timothy.
I.
1.
200n.
44
13
336n.
II.
3-6.
257a.*
44
4.
199c.
44
8.
522a.
44
11.
485b.*
44
14-16.
629c.
44
15.
22b.
44
16.
257c.
44
17.
257c.
44
20.
257b*
44
21.
257b.*
44
23.
629c.
44
24.
154b*
III.
1-9.
460a.
44
8.
501b.
44
15.
22b, 503a.
4S
16. 68b,
140b, 142a,
150b ,*157c,267c,
493c
, 582a*
44
17.
142a,* 181c.*
IY.
6-8.
456c.
44
6.
459n.
44
13.
121a, 139c.
Titu9.
I.
2.
200n.
44
12.
120b, 501c.
44
14.
614a, 629b.
II.
7.
336n.
44
8.
121c.
44
13.
452b.
III.
5.
593b.
u
9.
629c.
Philemon.
James.
2.
f
177a.
I. 1-4.
531a.
9.
24 In.
“ 7.
200a.
16.
680c.
“ 13.
122c.
“ 21.
530a.
Hebrews.
“ 22-25.
529a.
I. 1.
19a, 142b,
“ 25.
530a.
503c,
536b,
“ 27.
530c.
566c.
II. 3.*
121c,
“ 2.
553b*
“ 8.
529b, 530a,
“ 14.
252c.*
681a.
II. 2.
566c.
“ 14-17.
531a.
III. 1-6.
843a*
“ 15.
530c.
“ 3.
337a.
“ 16.
530c.
“ 11.
125c*
“ 17.
529b.
IY. 9.
339a.
“ 21-24.
529b.*
“ 14.
339b.
“ 21.
530c.
V. 1.
351c.
“ 24.
338c, 531a.
“ 10-14.
346a*
III. 17.
180b.
“ 12.
183a.
IY. 14.
199c.
“ 13.
182a.
Y. 11.
180c.
“ 14.
181c*
VI. 5.
576a.
1 Peter.
YII. 1.
341c.*
“ 2.
339b.
I. 1.
433b.
“ 6.
122b.
“ 2.
433b.
“ 9.
122b.
“ 10.
407n.
“ 14.
522a*
“ 11.
140bc*
“ 16.
199n.
“ 12.
140bc.*
YIII. 5.
336n.
“ 18.
591a.
“ 12.
121b.
“ 19.
339a, 591a.
“ 18.
199a.
II. 4.
228b.*
IX. 7-12.
344a *
“ 5.
177b, 228b,*
“ 8.
368b.* 398b.
311c, 361a,
“ 9.
265c,
276c.
o
64b, 452n.
“ 10.
344n.
“ 6.
228c.
“ 11.
366c,*
491b.
“ 9.
I77ab, 364b.
“ 12.
339b,
366c*
“ 14.
526b.
“ 14.
358c.
III. 18.
591a.
“ 15.
198a.
“ 18-20.
592b*
“ 22.
359a*
“ 21.
321b, 386n.
“ 23.
491b.
IY. 3.
199b*
“ 24.
336n,
366c*
“ 6.
592c.
“ 26.
441c.*
“ 15.
123a.
“ 27.
599a.
“ 17.
354b.
“ 28.
339a.
“ 18.
505b.*
X. 1.
338a, 573b.
Y. 3.
336n.
“ 19-22.
336a,
367a.*
“ 19.
368b, 491b.
2 Peter.
“ 22.
491b.
I. 19-21.
630b*
XI. 10.
183c.
“ 21.
140b,* 157c,
“ 19.
265c,
276c.
406n,
“ 34.
125b.
566c.
“ 35.
464b.
II. 22.
265c * 329a.
XII. 22-24.
368b.*
III. 8.
496a.*
“ 22.
491a* 491n.
“ 10.
183a, 446b,
“ 23.
182a,
490b.
449n, 596n.
“ 24.
198a, 199a*
“ 10-13.
489n*
“ 26-28.
452a,*
“ 12.
596n.
489n, 490a,*
“ 15]
501a.
578a.
“ 16. 20c, 102b, 501a,
XIII. 15.
501a.
603b.
INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS.
769
1 John.
Revelation.
Revelation.
I.
5.
200a.
V.
11.
49 In.
XII. 15. 384b*
II.
7.
198b.*
VI.
1-8.
417b ,*430a.
tt
17. 476b.
u
8.
198e.*
tt
2.
394b.
XIII.
1. 383b, 417a,*
it
12.
121c.
tt
2-8.
433a.
473n, 476a,*
it
16.
199c.*
tt
5.
394b.
479b, 480a.
It
18.
460a, 465b, 498b.
u
6.
394b.
it
2. 417a,* 484a.
It
19.
460a.
u
9.
239n, 348n,
tt
5. 384c,* 3S6b.
ti
20.
165c.
470b.*
a
7. 476b.
III.
17.
199c.*
u
9-11.
485b.
ti
8. 491n.
IV.
7.
157a.*
a
10.
470b,* 475a.
tt
11. 417b,* 4 7 3n,
tt
9.
591a.
tt
11.
470c.
476b,* 484a.
4;
15.
228c.
tt
12-17.
470c.*
It
12. 484a.
44
16.
157a,* 361a.
VII.
1.
382a.
it
14. 239n.
V.
7.
130b, 172c, 590b.
a
2.
125c.
tt
18. 238a, 269b,*
44
20.
200an.
a
3.
433b.
390n, 477a,
ti
4-8.
383c.
480b.
2 John.
tt
9.
394b.
XIV.
1. 472b, 473n.
8.
279n.
a
13-17.
49 In.
ti
1-5. 477a*
VIII.
2.
433b.
ti
3. 199a.
Jude.
a
3.
S65a.
It
6. 477b*
3.
21 lab*
tt
4.
365a.
ti
7. 477b*
4.
21 lab*
a
5.
433b.
a
8. 391b,*477c,
6.
501b.
a
13.
471c.
479n,* 483a.
9.
501b.
IX.
1.
472n*
a
9-12. 477c.
14.
501b.
tt
4.
433b.
it
13. 477c*
21.
122a.
tt
11.
473n, 480b.
u
14. 473n.
a
14.
472b*
a
14-16. 478a.
Revelation.
X.
1.
473 an.*
tt
20. 474n.
I.
1.
241b * 466cn ,*
tt
2.
369a.
XVI.
12. 472b.
577c.
a
6.
473b.
it
13. 477a.
(4
1-
-3.
487a.
ti
7.
384b* 473b.
ti
16. 472b.
44
3.
•
241b,* 40 7n.
it
8-11.
369a, 473b*
it
19. 391b* 479n ,*
44
4.
240b, 589b.
XI.
1-3.
241a*
488a.
44
4-
6.
468b.
a
1.
473c*
XVII.
1-3. 391c*
44
6.
589b.
tt
2.
384bc, 386b,
a
1. 472b.
44
6.
364b, 488n.
44 5 n.
a
1-4. 488b.
44
7.
468bn,* 479a.
tt
3.
384c,* 386a,
Li
3. 473n.
44
9.
239c*
474an.*
tt
5. 391b,* 472b.
44
11.
240b.
a
4.
352a,* 417c.
it
7-18. 479a*
44
12.
335c.
It
7.
473n, 481a.
it
8. 473n, 479b,*
44
13-
16.
327c, 473a.
it,
8.
241a * 352b,
480a,* 498c.
II.
3.
239n.
391 ab, 472b,
tt
9. 479a, 480cn*
44
6.
469b.
474n, 479an.*
ti
10. 24 In.
44
7.
363a,
tt
11.*
182a.
it
11. 353a, 476n*
44
13.
469b, 474a.
a
14.
475a.
482a*
44
17.
199a.
tt
15.
467n, 475a*
it
12. 353a, 383b.
44
20.
469b.
a
18.
475a.
ti
15. 472b.
44
26.
475c, 484c.
a
19.
475a.
ll
18. 479an*
44
27.
475c, 4S4c.
a
24.
433b.
XVIII.
1. 482a*
m.
12.
199a.
XII.
1.
475b,* 488b.
ti
1-3. 483a.
44
21.
470n, 484c.
a
3.
383b, 473n,
ti
2. 391b, 472n,
IV.
3.
334c.
480b *
473n.
44
6-
8.
363a.
tt
5.
475a,* 477b.
it
4-20. 483a.
44
7.
363b.
a
6, 12.
384b.
it
1 0. 239n.
44
8.
381c.
tt
6.
386a, 389b.
it
15. 239n.
44
11.
239n.
It
7.
472b, 473n,
it
21-24. 4S3b*
V.
1.
469c.
499n.
XIX.
7. 490n.
44
G.470a *473n,480n.
ti
11.
239n, 477b.
tt
8. 394b.
44
8.
365a.
tt
13.
384b.*
a.
10. 482a, 488a.
11. 391b, 473n,
44
9.
199a.
ti
14.
126a, 386a,
ti
44
10.
364b, 488n.
445b.
483b* 487a.
49
770
INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS.
Revelation.
XIX. 11-16.
483c.
u
17-21.
483c.
it
20.
477a.
XX.
1-3.
484a.
<t
1-6.
487a*
((
2-7.
390a.*
u
2.
413b,* 467n.
u
3.
413b*
u
4-6. 463b,* 475c,
484a ,*485cn.*
u
4.
239n, 463c,
484b*
ll
5.
455a.
u
7.
481a, 498c.
ll
7-10.
486a.
it
8.
382a.
ll
11.
394b, 473n,
489n, 594a.
Revelation.
XX. 11-15.
486a*
it
12-15.
493a.
tt
12.
594a.
XXI.
1.
199a, 489n.
it
1-8.
486a, 488b.
a
2.
472b.
tt
3.
367b.*4l7b,
491c.
tt
8.
483b, 487a.
227c, 391bc*
u
9.
tt
9-11.
488b.
(t
10. 183c, 184b,
391bc ,*436a.
tt
12.
383c.
tt
14.
227c,* 383c,
395c.*
t'
16.
361c, 491c.
*
18.
121b.
Revelation.
XXL 22.
367b* 417b,
492a.
“ 23.
417b, 492a.
“ 24.
490n.
“ 27.
491n.
XXII. 1.
470n.
“ 3.
492a.
“ 4.
492a.
“ 5.v
467n.
“ 6.
241b*
“ 7.
241b,* 407n.
“ 10.
241b,* 407n,
466c,* 487a.
“ 12.
241b,* 466c.
“ 14.
363a, 491c.
“ 16.
122c.
“ 20.
241b,* 466c.*
GENERAL INDEX
The different sections of the pages are designated as in the preceding Index of Scripture
Texts (see page 753). The sign + denotes that the subject referred to is continued beyond the
page designated.
Aaron Ben Asher, 620a.
Aben Ezra, 621 bc+.
Abrabanel, 625c.
Abul Faraj Aaron, 619b.
Aecadians, 29a.
Aecadian Hymn, 30c.
Accommodation Theory, 166bc.
Accommodation, False and True, 511+.
Adi-Granth, the, 66n.
Adler, 700a.
Africanus, 644c.
“ quoted, 522bc.
Agricola, 679a.
Ainsworth, 686c.
Akiba, 609n.
Albert of Ratisbon, 667a.
Alberti, 697c.
Alcuin, 662bc.
Alexander, J. A., 733c.
“ “ against Lowth, 95a.
“ “ quoted, 555b.
“ “ work referred to, 389n.
Alexander, W. L., 728c.
“ “ quoted, 505.
Alexandria, a Literary Centre, 117
“ many Jews in, 118a.
“ School of, 637+.
Alexandrian Codex, 131b, 136a.
Alford, 208b. 729b.
“ quoted, 239c. 285c, 310b, 367n,
435c, 439b, 459n, 466n, 476n, 485n,
526c+, 591a.
Allegorical' Interpretation, 163, 630c.
“ “ Gforer on, 611a.
Allegory, 302+..
“ of Paul, 321 +.
Allen, on Year-day Theory, 383n, 388n,
390b.
Alphabetical Poems, 100b.
Alphonsus of Alcala, 672c.
Alphonsus Zamora, 672c.
Altar of Incense, 365ab.
“ the Great, 565c+.
Alter, 700a.
Alting, 691b.
Ambrose, 655bc.
American exegetes, 732c+.
Ammon, 714a.
Amoraim, the, 616n.
Analogy of Faith, 579+.
Analogous Imagery in Apocalvptics, 417.
Anderson on Norse Mythology, 63n.
Andreas, 652c, 661c.
Angel of Jehovah, 588a.
Anthony of Nebrissa, 672b.
Anthropomorphism, 103.
Antiquities. 155a.
Antioch, School of, 644bo+.
Antithesis, Use of, 184c.
Apocalypse, Date of, 237+.
“ Interpretation of, 466+.
Plan of, 467bc.
Apocryphal Books, 501a.
Apologetic Interpretation, I71c+.
Apostasy, the, 460a.
Apostrophe, 252a.
Aquinas, 190n, 666b.
Aramaic Language, 74c+, 107+.
Arethas, 652c, 661c.
Aretius, 678c.
Ariel, Symbolic Name, 392c.
Aristobulus, 610bc.
Alius, 645c.
Arminius, 689bc.
Arnald, 701a.
Arnold, Edwin, 42n.
Assumed Comparisons, 256c+.
Assyrian Sacred Books, 28c+.
Astruc, 7 14b.
Athanasian Creed, quoted, 588c+.
Athanasius, 651c.
Atonement, Vicarious, 590bc+.
Attersoll, 687a.
Attic Dialect, 116bc.
Atwater, work referred to, 360n, 368n.
393n, 395n.
Auberlen, 727a.
“ quoted, 427c+.
Augustine, 657bc+.
“ quoted, 272a.
Avesta, the, 25.
Babel, Confusion of Tongues at, 71c.
“ Chaldaean Account of, 33c.
Babylon, in Prophecy, 414.
“ Sacred Records of, 28c.
“ Symbolical Name, 391bc.
Bacher, work referred to, 6l6n.
772
GENERAL INDEX.
Baer, work referred to, 13 In.
Biihr, 727c.
“ quoted, 357n, 381a.
“ work referred to, 360n. 380n, 383n,
393n, 395n.
Barclay, work referred to, 616n.
Pahrdt, 711a.
Barnabas, Epistle of, 631c.
Barnes, Albert, 734ab.
“ “ quoted, 418n.
Barrows, quoted, 219n, 569n.
Barsumas, 651b.
Basil, the Great, 652a.
Bauer, G. L., 715a.
Baur, Bruno, 7 16a.
Baur, F. 0., 170c, 716bc.
Baumgarten-Crusius, 724c.
Baumgarten, M., 725c+.
Baumgarten, S. J., 709c-}-.
Baxter. 687a.
Beast, Number of, 269b.
Beausobre, 697c.
Bechai, 624c.
Bede, the Venerable, 661c+.
Bellermann, work referred to, 90n.
Belshazzar, 419an.
Bengel, 152b, 699bc.
“ quoted, 294an, 341c, 445a, 460n,
497bc, 506a.
“ work referred to, 390n.
Benson, 728b.
Bentley, 699a.
Berleburg Bible, 709c.
Bernard, quoted, 576n-f, 577bc.
“ work referred to, 578n.
Bertheau, 720c.
“ work referred to, 389n.
Berth oldt, 721a.
Beza, 677c+.
Bible, Literature of, 24.
“ a self-interpreting Book, 222b.
“ False notions of, 499.
“ Compared with Ethnic Bibles, 66-68.
Biblia Magna, 688c.
Biblia Maxima, 688c.
Birch, work referred to, 54bn.
Birch, 700a.
Bisping, 737b.
Bissel, 727c.
Blair, quoted, 256bc.
Blayney, 703a.
Bleek, A. H., work referred to, 25n.
Bleek, F., 723c+.
“ “ quoted, 124ab, 47 In, 626b.
“ “ work referred to, 108n.
Blood, Avenging of, 5 2 Sab.
“ Symbolism of, 358.
Bloomfield, 728c.
Blount, 704a.
Bochart, 689a.
Boehl, work referred to, oOln.
Bbttcher, work referred to, 79n.
Body, as house of soul, 183bc-K
Bolingbroke, 705a.
Bonaventura, 666c+.
Bopp, quoted, 79n.
Botta, 28n.
Braune, 727c.
“ quoted, 262n.
Breithaupt, work referred to, 620n.
Brown, 731c.
Brown, D., quoted, 486n, 599c.
Browne, quoted, 5S7c-j-.
Bi'uccioli, 680b.
Bucer, 678a.
Buddha’s Discourses, specimens of, 42-45.
Buddhism, Doctrines of, 42b.
Buddhist Canon, 40+.
Bugenhagen, 678a.
Bull, 687b.
Bullinger, 678c.
Bunsen, work referred to, 54bn.
Burgensis, Paul, 668a.
Burkitt, 702b.
Burnouf, work referred to, 25n.
Bush, George, 734a.
Butler, 705a.
Buttmann, 726b.
“ work referred to, 209n, 507a,
Buxtorf, 683a.
Bynaius, 691b.
Bythner, 687a.
Cabala, the. 621bn.
Caesarea, School of, 642c-k
Calixtus, 691a.
Calmet, 697c.
Calovius, 690c-f.
Calvin, 676bc+.
“ quoted, 571n.
Camerarius, 678b.
Campbell, 702c.
Candlestick, Golden, 350b, 364c.
Canon, the Christian, 24.
Canticles, Interpretation of, 324+.
Cappel, 685a, 688b.
Capporeth, the, 362ab.
Carlstadt, 679a.
Caryl, 687a.
Casaubon, 688a.
Cassel, quoted, 263n, 268n, 269a.
Cassiodorus, 659b.
Castell, 684b.
Castellio, 678c.
Catenists, the, 661bc+.
Cave, quoted, 344c.
“ work referred to, 359n.
Celerier, quoted, 17c.
“ work referred to, 18n, 581n.
Chaldee Language, 75a, 107+.
Chalmers, J., quoted, 46c.
“ “ work referred to, 47n.
Chandler, E., 705a.
Chandler, S., 702b.
GENERAL INDEX.
773
Charlemagne, 662b.
Chasdim, the, 107en+.
Cherubim, the, 362c+.
Chiliasm in Early Church, 636n+.
China, Sacred Books of, 46+.
Chronology, 155a.
Chrysostom, 648bc+.
Chubb, 704c.
Church, New Test, meaning of, I76bc+.
Clarius, 676b.
Clarke, Adam, 728b.
Clarke, J. F., quoted, 40c+.
Claudius of Turin, 664a.
Clement of Alexandria, 638+.
“ “ quoted, 163c+, 561b.
Clement of Rome, 631b.
Clement, Recognitions of, quoted, 538n.
Clericus, 696ab.
Clermont Codex, 136ab.
Cocceius, 69 1+.
Cochran, work referred to, 4l7n.
Ccelestius, 658b.
Coke, T., 702a.
Colani, 717a.
Colebrook, work referred to, 39n.
Colenso, quoted, 519an.
Collins, 704a.
Colours, Symbolism of, 393+.
Comparison of Prophecies, 416+.
Conant, 735a.
“ quoted, 329b.
Condillac, 705b.
Confucius, 48c.
Connexion of Thought, various, 219b.
Context, Use of, 182a.
“ defined, 210b.
“ illustrated, 214c+.
Conybeare, John, 705a.
Conybeare, W. J., 732b.
“ work referred to, 235n.
Cook, F. C., 731c.
Cornelius a Lapide, 693a.
Coronel, 672c.
Cottle, work referred to, 63n.
Coverdale, 681a.
Cowles, 734c.
“ quoted, 35 In, 376a, 386n.
“ work referred to, 386n, 425n, 491n.
Crabb, quoted, 334b.
Craven, on Symbols, 348n.
Creation, Chaldee account of, 31c+.
“ Mosaic narrative of, 544+.
Cremer, 123n.
“ quoted, 199cn+, 302n.
“ work referred to, 200n, 202n.
Critici Sacri, the, 684c+.
Criticism, Textual, 129+.
“ distinguished from Hermeneu¬
tics, 19b.
Curcellseus, 690b.
Currey, quoted, 434b, 435bc.
Cyprian, 654b.
Cyril of Alexandria, 444a.
Cyril of Jerusalem, 652b.
Da Costa, work referred to, 560n.
Daniel, Chaldee portions of, 109ab.
“ Service in Babylon, 113b.
“ Visions of Empire, 418+.
Darmesteter, quoted, 25c, 28b.
“ work referred to, 25n.
Davenant, 687b.
David, as Symbolical Name, 392b.
Davids, work referred to, 44n.
Davidson, 729a.
“ quoted, 203c+, 220, 222ab, 281 n,
303n, 327a, 503n, 513c, 654n,
665a, 679b.
“ work referred to, 18n, 129n,
494n, 501n.
Davison, quoted, 405n.
Dead, Egyptian Book of, 53+.
De Dicu, 683cj
Deism, English, 703c+.
De la Haye, 688c.
Delitzsch, 727b.
“ quoted, 146c, 147a, 254c, 358bc,
897c, 402n, 617.
“ work referred to, 401n.
Deluge, Chaldsean account of, 33c.
“ not universal, 541c+.
De Rossi, 698c.
De Saulcy, 28n.
Descartes, 705b.
Desprez, quoted, 419n, 448c.
Deutsch, work referred to, 615n.
De Wette, 152b, 208b, 719.
“ work referred to, 90n.
Dhammapada, quoted, 45.
Dialects, Greek, 115e+.
Diderot, 705b.
Dietrich, 693c+.
Diodati, 680b.
Diodorus of Tarsus, 646c+.
Diognetus, 632c.
Dionysius of Alexandria, 642a.
Discrepancies of Scripture, 514+.
Doctrine, Progress of, in Bible, 566+.
“ may be taught by Figures, 593+.
Doctrinal Use of Scripture, 5S2+.
Dodd, 702a.
Doddridge, 702a.
Doderlein, 698c.
Doedes, quoted, 20n, 230n, 595n.
“ work referred to, 18n.
Dogmatic Interpretation, l71c+.
Doring, 668a.
Dorner, quoted, 583n, 635c+, 650c.
Dorotheus, 645ab.
Dort, Canon of, quoted, 590b.
“ Synod of, 689b, 691c.
Double' Sense, Theory of, 493bc+.
Dreams, 396+.
Driver, work referred to, 88n.
774
GENERAL INDEX.
Drusius, G83e.
“ work referred to, 501n.
Druthmar, 663c P.
Ducas, G72b.
Dudley, work referred to, 368n.
Duperron, 25b.
Diisterdieck, 72Gc.
“ work referred to, 427n.
Dwight, B. F., quoted 176a,
Eadie, 730c+.
“ quoted, 2G4c.
Eber, Father of Hebrews, 76c.
Ebionisra, affecting Interpretation, 636c.
Ecclesiastes, Date and Authorship of, 105.
“ Plan of, 221b.
Ecstasy, Prophetic, 399bep.
Eddas, the, 62 P.
Edelmaun, 711a.
Eden, Land of, 550.
Edersheim, work referred to, 480n.
Edessa, School of, 650b.
Egypt, Sacred Books of, 53b.
“ as a Symbolical Name, 391a.
Eichhorn, 713c+-
Elias Levita, 626c.
Ellicott, 208b, 730b.
“ quoted, 322a, 451bc, 455c+, 457a,
459n, 464b, 507c.
Elliott, work referred to, 14-7n.
Elliott, E. B., 732b.
“ work referred to, 386n.
Elliott, C., work referred to, 583n.
Elliott and Harsha, work referred to, 18n.
End of the Age, 441.
Engelhai’dt, work referred to, 380n.
English Version, Authorized, 681b, 683c.
‘‘ “ Revised, 736c P.
Enigma, 270cP.
Enthusiasm in Interpretation, 157a.
Enzinas, 680b.
Ephraim Syrus, 651a.
“ Codex, 136a.
Epiphanius, 651cp.
Episcopius, 690a.
Erasmus, 670cp.
Ernesti, 707c+.
“ work referred to, 18n.
Eschatology of Gospels, 438+.
“ Pauline, 454 P.
“ Summary of N. Test., 492bc+.
Estius, 688c.
Eternal Punishment, 591c+.
Etymology, Value of, 175cP.
Eusebius of Caesarea, 643c.
“ quoted, 559n, 610c, 637n.
Eusebius of Emesa, 646c.
Eusebius of Nicomedia, 645c.
Eustathius, 646b.
Euthymius Zigabenus, 665c+.
Ewald, 722.
“ quoted, 310c.
Ewald, work referred to, 83n, 90n.
Exegesis distinct from Hermeneutics, 19c.
Exodus, Analysis of, 212c P.
Ezekiel, Analysis of, 432+.
Ezra, the Scribe, 604bcp.
“ Chaldee portions of, 109c.
Faber, quoted, 474n.
Fable, Character of, 265c, 267c.
Fagius, 678b.
Fairbairn, quoted, 342c+, 346bn, 357b,
359b, 361n, 363n, 365, 406bc, 407n,
409c p, 412n, 413ab, 415n, 433c, 521n.
Fairbairn, work referred to, 18n.
Farrar, quoted, 478n, 694b, 704n, 709n,
712b, 717c, 713b.
“ work referred to, 267n.
Fathers, Apostolic, 63 1+.
“ the Ancient, as exegetes, 63Gbcn+,
660bc.
Fausset, 731c.
Fay, 727c.
“ quoted, 541c.
Figurative Language, 243+.
“ “ may teach doctrine, 593.
Figures of Thought, 248b.
Figures of Words, 248b.
Fisher, quoted, 535u, 536ac+, 537n, 682b.
Flacius, 679b.
Flatt, 723b.
Floras Magister. 664a.
Forbes, work referred to, 18n.
Form essential to Poetry, 92c.
Franck, work referred to, 62 In.
Francke, A. H., 165n, 706a.
Frederick the Great, 704bc.
Friedrick, work referred to, 360n.
Free Thought in 17th Century, 694bc.
French Infidelity, 703c, 705b.
French Rationalism, 7 17a.
Fritzsche, 724c.
Fronm filler, 727c.
F first, work referred to, 618n, 619n, 624n.
Gabler, 714c.
Gaillard, 688c.
Galatians, Structure of Epistle to, 152a.
Gaonim, 616n.
Gardiner, 735a.
“ quoted, 135c, 565n.
“ work referred to, 554ru
Gataker, 686c.
Gathas, the, 26c.
Gebhardt, quoted, 481n+.
Geier, 694a.
Geikie, quoted, 20n, 300c, 542b.
Gemara, see Talmud.
Genealogies, Value of, 524.
“ of our Lord, 521+.
Genesis, Analysis of, 211c+.
“ a series of Evolutions, 567.
Gerlach, 724b.
GENERAL INDEX.
775
Gershonides, see Levi Ben Gershom.
Gerson, 669a.
Gesenius, 721c+.
“ quoted, 79c, 85n.
“ work referred to, 75n, 85n, 392c.
Gforer, quoted, 611a.
Gill, 702b.
Ginsburg, 732c.
“ quoted, 609ab, 619bc.
work referred to, 606n, 608n.
609n, 621n, 627n.
Girdlestone, work referred to, 202n.
Giustiniani, 672b.
Glasgow, quoted, 480n+.
“ work referred to, 241n,467n, 491n.
Glassius, 693c.
“ work referred to, 28 In.
Gloag, 731a.
“ work referred to, 409n.
Glossolaly, 402bc+.
Gnosticism affecting Christian Thought,
636c.
Goddeau, 688b.
Godet, 208b, 728a.
“ quoted, 444n, 464c.
Godwin, 687b.
Gog, Battle of, 435bc.
Gomar, 689b.
Goodwin, John, 687b.
Goodwin, Thomas, 687b.
Gospels, Harmony and Diversity of, 553+.
Gouldman, 684c.
Grammatico-Historical Interpretation, 173,
203.
Grassmann, quoted, 35bc.
Graves, work referred to, 569n.
Greek Language, 73c, 114+.
Green, AV., 703a.
Green, W. H., quoted, 326bc, 327n.
Gregory, D. S., work referred to, 560n.
Gregory the Great, 659c+.
Gregory of Nazianzum, 652b.
Gregory of Nyssa, 652a.
Gregory Thaumaturgus, 643a.
Griesbach, 700b.
“ quoted, 1 34cn.
Grimnis-mal, the, 64b.
Grotius, 690c.
“ quoted, 403n.
Guyot, quoted, 546a.
Ilackett, 735a.
Hagadah, 606b+.
Hagenbach, quoted, 485n, 584n, 707c+,
710c.
Hahn, 737b.
“ article referred to, l74n.
Halachah, 606b+.
Haley, work referred to, 532bn.
Hammond, 686b.
Hapax legomena, 179+.
Hardwick, quoted, 39bc.
Hardwick, work referred to, 40n.
Hardy, work referred to, 41n, 42n.
Harless, 737b.
Harmonies, Use of Gospel, 554+.
Hartmann, 7 14c.
Hase, quoted, 660a, 669b.
Hate, Scripture sense of, 224+.
Haug, work referred to, 25n.
Hava-mal, the, 64b.
Haven, G., quoted, 148n.
Haverniek, 723c.
Haymo, 663b.
Hebraisms in New Testament, 124c+.
Hebraists, the, 119bcn+.
Hebrew Language, 76+.
“ Parallelism, 95+.
“ Poetry, 90+.
“ Rhymes, 100bc+.
Heiligstedt, 720c.
Heinrichs, 707b.
Heinsius, 691a.
Hellenes, the, 115b.
Hellenists, the, 118c.
Hellenistic Greek, 118c+.
Henderson, 728c.
Hendewerk, 737b.
Hengstenberg, 723bc.
“ quoted, 293a, 369c, 374c,
375b, 379b, 416n.
“ work referred to, 409n.
Henke, 714a.
Henry, 701c+.
Herder, 709a.
“ work referred to, 90n.
Hernias, Shepherd of, 632c.
Hermes, god of Arts, 17n.
Hervey, quoted, 523bc+.
“ work referred to, 524n.
Herzog, work referred to, 360n.
Hesy chius, 642c.
Hexapla, the, 640b.
Hevne, 714c.
Hibbard, quoted, 233b+.
High Priest, type of Christ, 366bc+;.
Hilary of Poitiers, 655a.
Hilgenfeld, 716c.
“ work referred to, 404n, 427n.
Ilincks, 28n.
Hippolytus, 653bc.
Ilirzel, 720c.
Historical Standpoint, 231+.
History, knowledge of, needed in Exposi¬
tion, 154c.
Hitchcock, article referred to, 536n.
Hitzig, 720c, 721a.
Hodge, 734a.
Hoffmann, Andreas, 723a.
Hofmann, work referred to, 498n.
Holmes, quoted, 627a.
Holy of Holies, Symbols of, 361 c+.
Homiletics, to be based on correct Inter¬
pretation, 600.
77G
GENERAL INDEX.
Home, 729a.
“ quoted, 510c.
“ work referred to, 129n, 494n, 501n,
502n.
Hort, 736c.
“ quoted, 132n, 588n.
Hosea’s Marriage, real, 373c+.
Hottinger, 691b.
Houbigant, 698a.
Howson, 732b.
“ quoted, 235bc, 461n.
Hug, 724b.
Hugo of St. Caro, 667a.
Human Element in the Scriptures, 138c+,
709a.
Hume, 705a.
Hupfeld, 722c+.
Hurd, quoted. 688a.
Hurst, quoted, 706a, 7llc+.
Huss, 66Sc.
Huther, 726c.
II utter, 6Slc.
Hyperbole, 253b.
Ibas, 651b.
lbn Balaam, 623c.
Ibn Caspi, 624n.
lbn Chajim, 626b.
Ibn Danan, 625b.
Ibn Giath, 623c.
Ignatius. 681e+.
Imagination in Interpretation, 152c.
Immer, quoted, 166n, 222a, 692c.
“ work referred to, 18n, 126n.
Incense, Altar of, 365ab.
Inscriptions, Monumental, 29b.
Inspiration of Scripture, 137+.
Interpretations, Origin of various, 603c.
Interrogation, 252c.
Introduction, Biblical, distinct from Her¬
meneutics, 19a.
Ionians, the, 116a.
Irenseus, 635bc+.
“ on date of Apocalypse, 237b+.
“ quoted, 558c+.
Irony, 253c.
Isaac Ben Judah, 623c.
Isagogics, see Introduction.
Ishmael Ben Elisa, 608n.
Isidore of Pelusium, 649b.
Jablonski, 698a.
Jackson, Arthur, 687a.
Jacob, words with Laban, 91c+.
“ dying Prophecy, 99bc+.
“ Dream at Bethel, 397c+.
“ Family Register, 516+.
Jacob Ben Naphtali, 620a.
Jacobus, 734b.
Jahn, 698c.
Jamieson, 731c.
Japheth Ben Ali, 619c.
Jasher, Book of, 540c+.
Jehoash’s Fable, 266c+.
Jephthah’s daughter, 206+.
Jerome, 656+. «
“ quoted. 639c.
Jerusalem, as Symbolical Name. 391bc.
Jeshua Ibn Sadal, 619b.
Jewish Exegesis, 603+.
Jezirah, Book of, 621bn.
Joachim, 666a.
Job. Date and Authorship, 105.
Joel, the oldest Apocalypse, 428c.
“ Analysis of, 429c+.
John, First Epistle, Date of, 241n.
Jonathan Ben Uzziel, 614bc.
Jonathan, Pseudo, 614c.
Jones, Sir William, quoted, 25a.
Josephus, quoted, 410b, 451b, 472a, 479n,
482n, 607a.
“ works referred to, 448bn, 476n.
Joshua Ben Judah, 621a.
Jotham’s Fable, 266a.
Jowett, 732a.
“ quoted, 323n.
Judae Leo, 680c.
Judgment, Scriptural Doctrine of, 449c+.
Junius, 679c.
Justification, Paul and James on, 528+.
Justinian of Corsica, 672b.
Justin Martyr, 633c+.
Kapila, Philosophy of, 40c.
Kant, 712.
“ on Interpretation, 167b.
“ work referred to, 167n.
Kalisch, 732b.
Karaites, the, 618bc+.
Iveil, K. A. G., 708c,
“ “ work referred to, 203an.
Keil, K. F., 727b.
“ “ quoted, 108c, 351n, 358a, 377n+,
396bc, 420an, 432b, 436c+.
“ “ work referred to, 359n, 360n,
389n, 513n.
Keim, article referred to, 404n.
Kennicott, 698b.
Khammurabi, Inscription of 29c+.
Khordah-A vesta, 28a.
Kimchi, David, 624b.
“ Joseph, 624a.
“ Moses, 624ab.
King, the Five, 49+.
Kitto, 728c.
“ Cyclopaedia quoted, 76n.
“ “ referred to, 608n, 609n,
615n, 61 6n, 621 n, G23n, 627n.
“ Journal of Sac. Lit. quoted, 430n.
“ ref. to, 8 On, 83n.
Klausen, work referred to, ISn.
Kleinert, 727c.
Kliefoth, work referred to, 380n.
Kling, 727c.
GENERAL INDEX.
777
Kling, work referred to, 404n.
Knapp, 735b.
Knobel, 720c, 721a.
Kbllner, 737b.
Koppe, 707b.
Koran, the, 57+.
Kostlin, 716c.
Kiihner, work referred to, 115n.
Kuinoel, 721b.
Kurtz, 727a.
“ quoted, 366n.
“ work referred to, 359n, 380n.
Kypke, 697c.
Laban, Speech of, 91 be.
Lachmann, 735c+.
Lamech, Song of, 270ab.
Lammert, work referred to, 380n.
Lampe, 695c -f.
Lanfranc. 665b.
Lange, Joachim, 709b.
Lange, J. P., 727c.
“ “ quoted, 162n, 216b, 286n,
320abn, 341b, 439c+, 487n,
509n.
“ work referred to, 18n, 427n,
428n.
Laniado, 626bc.
Languages, Origin and Growth of, 69 f.
“ Families of, 73 +.
Laotsze, 46a.
Lardner, work referred to, 645n.
Laud, 687c.
Laver, the, 365c -h
Leathes, work referred to, 409n.
Le Clerc, 696a.
Lechler, 727c.
Lee on Inspiration quoted, 142c.
Lefevre, 670b.
Legge, quoted, 47bc, 48c F, 52c+.
Leighton, 686c.
Le Jay, 684a.
Leland, 705a.
Lengerke, 714c, 721b.
“ work referred to, 65 In.
Lenormant, 28n.
Lessing, 711a.
Leusden, 692c+.
Leviathan, as Symbolical Name, 392c.
Levi Ben Gershom, 625a.
Levita, 626c+.
Lewin, 732b.
“ quoted, 23 7n.
Lewis, Tayler, 94n.
“ “ quoted, 68n, 103n, 144n,
150bc, 307a, 308an.
“ work referred to, 94n.
Leydecker, 697b.
Leyrer, article referred to, 360n.
Libanius, 647c.
Lightfoot, John, 6S5c+.
“ “ quoted, 447n.
Lightfoot, J. B., 730c.
“ “ quoted, 323n.
Limborch, 690b.
Lisco, quoted, 2S2n.
Locke, 694c, 705b.
Locusts, Plague of, 430n.
Logos, Philo on the, 612.
Lombard, see Peter Lombard.
Lord, D. N., on Symbols, 348n.
Lowman, 701a.
Lowth, R., 701b.
“ “ work referred to, 90n.
Lowth, William, 701a.
Lucian, 645c.
Liicke, 7l9e+.
“ quoted, 427a.
Lumby, quoted, 140n.
Liinemann, 726b.
“ quoted, 435b, 459n.
Luthardt, 728a.
Luther, 673+.
“ quoted, 419n.
Dispute of, with Zwingle, 682.
Lyra, Nicholas de, 667bc+.
Macdonald, quoted, 240b.
Macknight, 702c.
“ work referred to, 554n.
Mahan, quoted, 518n.
Maimonides, 622c+.
Maldonatus, 680a.
Mallet, work referred to, 63n.
Malta, Vipers in, 237n.
Man of Sin, 460bc+.
Manuscripts, Uncial and Cursive, 131ab.
Marloratus, 679c+.
Marsh, quoted, 337c, 345b.
Martensen, quoted, 584n.
Martin, Sir W., quoted, 82bc.
Masoretes. work of, 79c, 130bc.
Matthai, 700a.
Maurer, 720c.
Maurus, Rhabanus, 663a.
“ “ quoted, 164c.
M’Call, quoted, 406n.
“ work referred to, 624n.
M’Clintock and Strong, Cyclopaedia, 729a.
“ “ quoted, 167n.
“ “ referred to, 608n,
615n, 616n, 619n, 621n, 623n, 628n.
Mechilta, 608n.
Mede, 688a.
“ quoted, 464n.
Medes, Prominence of, in Scripture, 422b.
Meisner, 698c.
Melanchthon, 674+.
Melchizedek, type of Christ, 341c+.
Melito, 635a.
Menant, 28n.
Mendelssohn, 627c+.
Menochius, 688b.
Mercyseat, the, 362.
778
GENERAL INDEX.
Merivale, work referred to, 46 In.
Merx, work referred to, 429n.
Messianic Psalms, 570c.
Metals, Symbolism of, 395.
Metaphor, 258bc+.
Metonymy, 248c+.
Meuschen, 697a.
Meyer, G. W., work referred to, 18n, 668n,
6G9n, 696n.
Meyer, H. A. W., 208b, 726bc+.
“ “ quoted, 1 80c, 262n, 271a,
273c, 295c, 298n, 300n, 312c, 317n, 321c,
337n, 406b, 407b, 441n, 442n, 445n,
447b, 46 3 n, 464b, 490n, 528n, 579n.
Meyrick, quoted, 428c I-.
Mic’naelis, C.*B., 706b.
Michaelis, J. D., 706c -f-.
“ work referred to, 569n.
Michaelis, J. F., 707a.
Michaelis, J. G., 707a.
Michaelis, J. H., 698a, 706b.
Middle Ages, Exegesis of, 661+.
Midrashim, 607bc-k
Millennium, 390bc, 484bc, 487bc+.
Mill, W. H., work referred to, 524n.
Mill, J., 699a.
Miller, William, 389c.
Mills, work referred to, 368n.
Milton, 694c.
“ quoted, 93c.
Miracles, 534bc-h
“ to be literally interpreted, 205c-h
Mirandula, 671c-h
Mislina, see Talmud.
Mohammed, 57c+.
Moldenhauer, 700a.
Moll, 727c.
Monasteries as Seats of Learning, 661a.
Moral Interpretation, 167b.
Morgan, 704c.
Mori son, 731b.
Mosaic Code, Humaneness of, 569b.
Mosheim, 707a.
Muenscher, quoted, 336b.
Muir, quoted, 61c+.
“ work referred to, 39n.
Muller, Max, quoted, 34c, 40b, 67n, 244b.
“ “ Translation of Yedic Hymn,
36, 38c P.
“ “ work referred to, 40n, 41 n,
45n.
Munk, 619c.
Munster, 676a.
Murphy, 731b.
Musculus, 678c.
Mystical Interpretation, 164bc4-.
Mythical Interpretation, 168e+, 714c+.
Niigelsbach, 727c.
“ quoted, 51 On.
Names, Symbolical, 39 1+.
Nast, 735a.
Nast, quoted, 218a, 229b, 440n.
Natalis, 659c.
Naturalistic Interpretation, 168ab.
Neander, 718c.
“ quoted, 530a, 643ab, 646a, 648b,
655a, 660n, 66 In, 689c.
“ work referred to, 404n, 635n.
Nehemiah, work of, 605bc+.
Nepos, 642a.
Nero, Man of Sin, 460c+.
Netherlands, the, 689a.
Newcome, 702c+.
“ work referred to, 554n.
New Testament must be explained by help
of the Old, 598.
Nicetas, 665b.
Nicolai, 71 la.
Niebuhr, 706c.
Nile, River, in Mythology, 55a.
Nisibis, School of, 650bc, 651b.
Nonnius, 672b.
Nordheimer, quoted, 81n, 620a.
“ work referred to, 85n, 89n.
Nork, work referred to, 368n.
Norris, 28n.
Norton, 734a.
4‘ quoted, 590n.
Norzi, 626a.
Numbers, Symbolical, 380+.
CEcolampadius, 675c.
(Ecumenius, 664b.
Oldenberg, work referred to, 41n.
Olearius, 693b.
Olivetan, 680b.
Oppert, 28n.
Olshausen. H., 725bc.
Olshausen, J., 720c.
Olympiodorus, 661c.
Origen, 639bc+. #
“ quoted, 560n.
Osgood, quoted, 656+.
Osiander, 678b.
Osiris, Egyptian Legend of, 54c+.
Owen, John, 687c+.
Owen, John J., 734b.
Pagninus, Sanctes, 672a.
Palmer, E. H., work referred to, 57n.
Pamphilas, 643ab.
Parables, Interpretation of, 276+.
Parallelism, Hebrew, 91+.
Parallel Passages, Comparison of, 186bc+,
221+.
Paulus, 168ab, 714a.
Pareau, work referred to, 18n.
Parousia, the, Coincident with the Fall of
Jerusalem, 450c+, 458.
Paser, 693c.
Patrick, 700c.
Patristic Exegesis, General Character of,
660.
GENERAL INDEX.
779
Pearce, Z., 702c.
Pearson, 684c.
Pecant, 7 17a.
Pelagius, 658b.
Pelliean, 675c+.
Pemble, 686c.
Pentecost, Miracle of, 403bc.
Pentateuch, Criticism of, 714bc.
Peter Lombard, 665c.
Peter Martyr (I), 642c.
Peter Martyr (II), 678b.
Peter, the Stone, 225c+.
Perowne, 731b.
Persia, Sacred Records of, 28c.
Personfication, 251b.
Pharisaism, Origin of, 606a.
Growth of, 607a.
Pfeiffer, Aug., 694a.
Phelps, quoted, 23n.
Philippi, F. A., 726a.
“ quoted, 406n-h
Philo Judaeus, 61 1+.
“ “ quoted, 163b, 612c+.
Philology, Comparative, Uses of, in Inter¬
pretation, 155c, I78bc.
Philosophy, German, 712.
Pick, quoted, 628a.
Pierce, B. K., quoted, 598n.
Pierius, 642b.
Pietism, Degenerate, 709c.
Pietistic Interpretation, 165c.
Piscator, 679c.
Plan of a Book to be studied, 210c+.
Planck, 121an.
“ quoted, 446n.
Plumptre, quoted, 329c.
“ article referred to, 404n.
Pocock, 686ab.
Polano, quoted, 615c.
Polyglots, the First, 672b.
“ Antwerp, 681bc.
“ London, 684b.
“ Nuremberg, 681c.
“ Paris, 684a.
Poole, 685ab.
Pope, quoted, 487n+, 596n.
Porphyry, 652e+.
Postilla, defined, 667n.
Pott, 707b.
Prepossesions, Freedom from, essential to
Interpreter, 595a.
Pressense, quoted, 632c+, 637b.
Procopius of Gaza, 661c.
Proof-texts, how to be used, 595c+.
Prophecy, Interpretation of, 405-h
Prosopopoeia, 251n.
Protestant Principles of Interpretation,
583ab.
Frovrerbs, defined, 328bc+.
“ Interpretation of, 330+.
“ Dark, 269c.
u Plan of Book of, 221a.
Psalms, Historical Occasions of, 233+.
Psalter, Theology of, 570c.
Pumbaditha, School of, 620a.
Purists, the, 119bn+.
Pusey, quoted, 41 In.
Quakers, Mystic Pietism of, 166a.
Qualifications of an Interpreter, 151+.
Quesnel, 697c.
Quotations, Scripture, 500+.
Rabbinical formulas of, 504n.
Rabbinical Exegesis, 618+.
Radbert, Paschasius, 664b.
Ralbag, 625a.
Rambam, 622c+.
Rashi, 620bc.
Rask, work referred to, 63a.
Rationalism, German, 703c.
“ Growth of, 710c-h
Scholarly form of, 711bc+.
“ * Service of, 717b, 737b.
Rawlinson, 28n.
“ work referred to, 419n.
Reason, in Interpretation, 153c.
Redak, 624b.
Reformation, Exegesis of, 673+.
Reiche, 737b.
Reineccius, 698a.
Reitmayr, 737b.
Reland, 696c.
Remigius, 664a.
Remonstrants, 689bc+.
Renan, 171a, 717a.
Renouf, work referred to, 53n.
Repetition of Dreams, Visions, and Pro*
phecies, 399a, 409+, 423b, 437c.
Resurrection, Doctrine of, 594bc, 574c-f-.
“ of Dry Bones, 349c+.
Resurrections, distinct and successive,
463+.
Reuchlin, 670b.
Reuss, 737b.
“ work referred to, 736n.
Revelation, distinct from Inspiration, 142c.
Reville, 717a.
Revival of Learning, 670a.
Riddle, the, Characteristics of, 268b.
“ distinguishable from Enigma, 270c.
Riehm, work referred to, 409n, 49 In.
Ritter, work referred to, 61 In.
Rivet, 688c.
Robinson, Edward, 733b.
“ “ quoted, 440c.
“ ' “ work referred to, 506n,
513n, 554n.
Rod well, work referred to, 57n.
Roman Church, on the Interpretation of
Scripture, 582c+.
Romans, Plan of Epistle to, 213c+.
Rorison, quoted, 547a, 548n.
Rosenmiiller, E. F. C., 720b.
780
GENERAL INDEX.
Rosenmiiller, J. G., work referred to, 649n,
658n, 663n, 664n.
Rossteuscher, work referred to, 404n.
Rougemont, 71 7a.
Rousseau, 704b.
Riickert, 737b.
Rule, work referred to, 618n.
Rupert, 665c.
Ryle, quoted, 493c
Saadia, 619a.
Saalschutz, work referred to, 90n.
Saboraim, the, 616n.
Sadducees, the, 607a.
Sakya-muni, 40.
Sale, work referred to, 57n.
Salmeron, work referred to, 28 In.
Salomon Ben Judah, 623c.
Salomon Ben Melech, 627b.
Samson’s Riddle, 268c.
Sankya Philosophy, 40c.
Sanscrit Language, 73c.
Sargon, Inscription of, 30b.
Sayce, 28n.
“ quoted, 29a, 33a.
Scaliger, 6S3c.
Scattergood, 684c.
Schaff, P., 727c-h.
“ “ quoted, 228c, 229n, 584n+,
586b.
“ “ work referred to, 241n, 267n,
404n, 582n.
Schenkel, 17 la.
Scherer, 7 17a.
Schindler, 683b.
Schleiermacher, 7l7c-f-.
“ quoted, 161n.
Schleusner, 724c.
Schmid, C. F., 723b.
Schmid, Sebastian, 694a.
Schmidt, Erasmus, 693c.
Schmoller, 727c.
“ quoted, 323a, 375a.
Schoettgen, 697a.
Scholz, 735c.
Schrader, 28n.
Schroeder, 797c.
“ quoted, 275n.
Schultens, 696bc.
Schulthess, 714a.
Schulz, 735c.
Schwegler, 716c.
Science, Alleged Contradictions of, 533+.
Scope, defined, 210b.
Scott, J., work referred to, 50 In.
Scott, Thomas, 702b.
Scribes, the, 605a.
Scriptures, Ethnic, to be examined, 23.
Scrivener, work referred to, 129n.
Scythian Languages, 73c.
Sedulius, 664a.
Seiler, work referred to, 18n.
Semler, 166bc, 710, 714c.
Septuagint Version, 118b, 609c+.
Serpent, the Brazen, 341.
Sewal, article referred to, 569n.
Shaftesbury, 704a.
Sherlock, 705a.
“ quoted, 590a.
Showbread, Table of, 364b.
Shedd, 735b.
Shu, the Four, 52bc.
Sibylline Books, 65n.
Sigfusson, 62c.
Sikhs, Scriptures of the, 66n.
Simile, 254b+.
Simon, R., 688b.
Simpson, work referred to, 360n.
Sim rock, work referred to, 63n.
Sinaitic Codex, 131b, 136a.
Slavery, Scriptures on, 580bc+.
Smaragdus, 664b.
Smith, George, 2Sn.
“ “ quoted, 29n.
“ “ work referred to, 32n.
Smith, James, 236q.
Smith, J. Pye, quoted, 550n.
“ “ work referred to, 409n.
Smith, R. P., quoted. 349a, 572n, 574b,
575n.
Smith, William, Dictionary of Bible, 729a.
“ “ referred to, 615n.
Socrates, quoted, 646c +.
Sodom, Accadian Poem on, 33ab.
“ as a Symbolical Name, 391a.
Sopherim, the, 6l6n.
Sora, School of, 620a.
Spanheim, 69 lab.
Spanish Schools, 621a.
Speaker’s Commentary, 731c+.
“ “ quoted, 54 In.
“ “ referred to. 432n.
Spener, 705c.
Spiegel, wrork referred to, 25n.
Spinoza, 694b, 704a, 705b.
Spirit of an Interpreter, 156+.
Stahelin, 714c.
Stanley. A. P., 732a.
“ “ quoted, 207n, 315cn, 404n,
57lc+, 607bcn, 610.
“ “ work referred to, 404n.
Stephen, Error of, in Acts vii, 17, 150an.
Steudel, 723b.
Stier, R., 725a.
“ “ quoted, 216c, 218c, 272c+, 279n,
294b, 295b.
Storr, 723a.
Strabo, Walafrid, 663b.
Strack, work referred to, 129n.
Strauss, 168c+, 715.
Strigel, 679a.
Strong, James, 735a.
“ “ quoted, 548ab.
“ work referred to, 554n.
GENERAL INDEX.
781
Stroud, work referred to, 554n.
Stuart, Moses, 733a.
“ “ quoted, 119n+, 173bc+,
332c, 381c, 493c+, 7l9bc.
“ “ work referred to, 239n,
26Sn, 380n, 386n, 425n.
Stunica, 672b.
Sturlason, 63a.
Style, Variety of, in N. T. Writers, 126b.
Suidas, work referred to, 647n.
Sun and Moon standing still, 540 1-.
Surenhusius, 697a.
“ work referred to, 616n.
Sveinsson, 62c.
Swedenborg, 165ab.
Symbolical Colours, 393+.
“ Metals, 395.
“ Names, 39 1+.
“ Numbers, 380 +.
Syrabolico-typical Actions, 340b, 369+.
Symbols, Interpretation of, 347+.
Synagogue, the Great, 605bcn+.
Synecdoche, 250c +.
Synonymes, 19 1+.
Tabernacle. Symbolism of, 359bc+.
Talbot, 28n.
“ quoted, 32c.
“ work referred to, 30n, 3 In.
Talmud, the, 615 +.
Tanaim, the, 616n.
Tanchum, 625a.
Taoism, 46a.
Tao-teh-King, the, 46 +.
Targums, 113a, 614bc+.
Taylor, Bayard, quoted, 93a.
Taylor, Isaac, work referred to, 90n.
Taylor, Jeremy, 694c.
Teller, 711b.
Tertullian, 654a.
Testaments, Old and New, to be studied
together, 18, 59G— j— .
Textual Criticism, 129 f.
“ “ Progress in, 627c+, 735bc+.
Theile, 725b.
Thenius, 720c.
Theodore of Mopsuestia, 647c+.
Theodoret, 649c +.
“ quoted, 647b.
Theology, Biblical and Historical, distin¬
guished, 584b.
“ Systematic, dependent on Bibli¬
cal Hermeneutics, 21c+.
Theophilus of Antioch, 635a.
Tholuck, 724c +.
“ quoted, 677n.
“ work referred to, 409n.
Thompson, J. P., work referred to, 57n.
Thompson, J. R., work referred to, 368n.
Tomson, W. M., 246c+.
“ “ work referred to, 318n.
Theophylact, 664c+.
Thorpe, work referred to, 63n.
Thrumpp, work referred to, 66n.
Tiberias, Jewish School of, 130bc, 620a.
Tichonius, 658c +.
Time, Prophetic Designations of, 385c+,
495c+.
Tindal, 704c.
Tirinus, 688c.
Tischendorf, 736a.
,! work referred to, 554n.
Titmann, 737b.
“ quoted, 507a.
“ work referred to, 202n, 506n.
Toland, 704a.
Tongues, Confusion of. 71c.
“ Speaking with, 402bc+.
Townley, quoted, 681n.
Townsend, work referred to, 554n.
Translations of Bible, modern, 680, 683a.
Tregelles, 736b.
‘‘ quoted, 135n, 137a.
“ work referred to, 129n.
Tremellius, 679c.
Trench, 730a.
“ quoted, 175c, 200c, 244c+, 277cn,
278n, 28 In, 283a, 286c, 289c,
291c, 379c, 538b, 593e+.
“ work referred to, 202n, 268n.
Trinity, Doctrine of, 586c+.
Tripitaka, the, 41+.
Tropes, many and various, 243a.
Trumpets, the Seven, 47 1+.
Tubingen School (new), 171n, 7l6bc.
“ “ (old), 723.
Tuch, 714c.
Turner, 734a.
“ work referred to, 501n.
Tyler, W. S., quoted, 114bc+.
Tyndale, 681a.
Types, Interpretation of, 334+.
Ugolino, work referred to, 608n, 616n, 617n.
Ullmann, 724b.
Ulphilas, 652b.
Umbreit, 724b.
“ quoted, 305b.
Upham, quoted, 305b, 520n, 563n.
Urbino, 626a.
Urstius, 685a.
Usher, 687c.
Usteri, 724b.
Usus Loquendi, 181+.
Uytenbogaert, 690a.
Uzziel, 614bc.
Valla, Lorenzo, 669b.
Van der Ilooght, 698a.
Van Oosterzee, 72:7c.
“ “ quoted, 273c, 584n, 596c+.
“ “ work referred to, 445n.
Van Mildert, quoted. 337c.
Various Readings, Causes of, 130a.
782
GENERAL INDEX.
Vatablus, 683c.
Vater, 714 b.
Vatican Codex, 131b.
Vedas, the, 34+.
Vendidad, the, 27bc+.
Venema, 696a.
Versions, Ancient, Use of, 188bc-k
Victorinus, 654c.
Vincent of Lerins, 659a.
Visional Actions, 369a.
Visional Symbols, 348a.
Vispered, the, 27ab.
Vitringa, 695b.
Voetius, 691 be.
Volkmar, 716c.
Volney, 7<)4b.
Voltaire, 704b.
Voluspa, the, 63ab+.
Von Bohlen, 714c.
Vossius, 686a, 691a.
Vulgate, First Printing of, 670b.
Walton, 684b.
Wangemann, quoted, 293a.
Warburton, 705a.
“ work referred to, 236n, 569n.
Waterland, 705a.
Watson, Richard, 728b.
“ “ quoted, 587bc.
Webster, 729c.
Wegscheider, 714a.
Weimar, Court of, 709n.
Weisse, 715c.
Wells, 703a.
Wemyss, w'ork referred to, 368n, 383n.
Wertheim Bible, 709c, 711b.
Wesley, John, 703b.
Wesley, Samuel, 703b.
Wessel, John, 668c.
Wesseling, 697b.
West, quoted, 636n+.
Westcott, 736c.
“ quoted, 560cn-f, 561n.
“ work referred to, 563n.
Westergaard, work referred to, 25n.
Westminster Annotations, 686c+.
“ Confession, quoted, 590b.
Wettstein, 699c+.
Whedon, 734bc.
“ quoted, 261ab, 342bc, 449n, 508b.
Whitby, 701a.
White, work referred to, 3 8 On.
Whitney, W. D., quoted. 34bc, 73a.
“ “ Translation of Vedic
Hymn, 36c f.
“ “ work referred to, 39n.
Whittingham, 681a.
Wilke, work referred to, 18n.
Wilkinson, 729c.
Willeram, 665b.
Wilson, Bishop D.. quoted, 145a.
Wilson, H. H., work referred to, 39n.
Wilson, work referred to, 202n.
Windischmann, 737b.
“ work referred to, 25n.
Winer, 208b, 726ab.
“ quoted, 208b, 209bc.
“ work referred to, 507n.
Winthrop on Symbols, 348n.
Wise, quoted, 623n.
Witsius, 695c.
Woide, 700a.
Wolf, Christian von, 709b.
Wolf, J. C., 697b.
Wolfenblittel Fragments, 711a.
Woodhouse, work referred to, 494n.
Wools ton, 704b
“ quoted, 704b.
Words the Elements of Language, 175a.
“ Meaning of, 175+.
Wordsworth, 729c +
“ quoted, 532n.
Wright, Arabic Grammar quoted, 82c-h
Wright, on Zechariah, quoted, 354n.
W iinsche, work referred to, 608n, 616n,
Wycliffe, 668b.
Ximenes, 672b.
Yasna, the, 26b.
Year-day Theory, 386+.
Yggdrasil, in Norse Mythology, 63n.
York, School of, 662b.
Zeller, 7 16c.
Zigabenus, 665c+.
Zbckler, 727c.
“ work referred to, 41 In, 425n.
Zohar, Book of, 621 bn.
Zoroaster, 25b.
Zwingle, 675b.
“ Dispute of, with Luther, 682n.
THE END,
WHEDON’S COMMENTARY.
This series of Commentaries is designed to' supply the want,
long felt, of an exposition, in convenient form, of the entire Old
and New Testaments. It is popular in style, compressed in form,
and yet thorough and comprehensive, embracing the best results
of modern scholarship. The Old Testament is to be completed
in eight volumes, and the New Testament, prepared almost
wholly by Dr. Whedon himself, is already completed in five.
OLD TESTAMENT VOLUMES.
ALREADY ISSUED.
Vol. III. JOSHUA. By D. Steele, D.D.
JUDGES to 2 SAMUEL. By Rev. M. S.
Terry, A.M.
Vol. IV. KINGS to ESTHER. By Rev. M. S. Terry,
A.M.
Vol. V. THE PSALMS. By F. G. Hibbard, D.D.
Vol. VI. JOB. By J. K. Burr, D.D.
PROVERBS. By W. Hunter, D.D.
ECCLESIASTES and SONG OF SOLOMON.
By A. B. Hyde, D.D.
Vol. VII. ISAIAH. By H. Bannister, D.D.
JEREMIAH and LAMENTATIONS. By F.
D. Hemenway, D.D.
IN PREPARATION
Vol. I. GENESIS and EXODUS. By Dr. M. S. Terry.
Vol. II. LEVITICUS to DEUTERONOMY. By Drs.
Steele and Lindsay.
Vol. VIII. EZEKIEL to MALACHI. By Dr. Horner.
NEW TESTAMENT VOLUMES.
Vol. I. MATTHEW and MARK.
Vol. II. LUKE and JOHN.
Vol. III. ACTS and ROMANS.
Vol. IV. i CORINTHIANS to 2 TIMOTHY.
Vol. V. TITUS to REVELATION.
ISSUED UNDER THE EDITORIAL SUPERVISION OF
GEO. E. CKOOKS, D.D., and JOHN F. HURST, D.D.
Ths Series will comprise the following Treatises :
INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
By Henry M. Harman, D.D.
(. Revised Edition.) 8vo. #4.
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
By Milton S. Terry, D.D.
8vo. $4.
THEOLOGICAL ENCYCLOPEDIA AND METHODOLOGY.
By Drs. Crooks and Hurst, hvo. #3 50.
1
BIBLICAL AND CHRISTIAN ARCHEOLOGY.
By Charles W. Bennett, D.D., and George H. Whitney, D.D.
SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
By James E. Latimer, D.D.
EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY.
By Henry B. Ridgaway, D.D.
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. (Two Volumes.)
By George R. Crooks, D.D.
HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. (Two Volumes.)
By John F. Hurst, D.D.
CHRISTIAN THEISM AND MODERN SPECULATIVE THOUGHT.
By Prof. Charles J. Little, Ph.D.
PHILLIPS & HUNT, Publishers,
80S Broadway, New York.
4
• “3 Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide
Treatment Date: May 2005
PreservationTechnologie;
I A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATIO
1 Thomson Park Drive
Cranberry Township PA 16066
■HjHP!ra| (724) 779-21 1 1
!
.»
S'Sc
r
/
*
v
✓
t
' 4
f
»
i
t
■
9
*
. s
S
j
«
✓
* Vi /) n -*»> • ' *“ *•■*■’
fr*: ;
4
■
%
J \ V
X
4
I
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11